Systematic review of the management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.

AIMS: To systematically review the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure. METHODS: Studies investigating the management of AF in patients with heart failure published between 1967 to 1998 were identified using MEDLINE, the Cochrane register and Embase databases. Reference lists from relevant papers and reviews were hand searched for further papers. RESULTS: Eight studies pertaining to acute and twenty-four pertaining to chronic AF were identified. For patients with acute AF ventricular rate control, anticoagulation and treatment of heart failure should be pursued simultaneously before cardioversion is attempted. Digoxin is relatively ineffective at controlling ventricular response and for cardioversion. Intravenous diltiazem is rapidly effective in controlling ventricular rate and limited evidence suggests it is safe. Amiodarone controls ventricular rate rapidly and increases the rate of cardioversion. There are insufficient data to conclude that immediate anti-coagulation, trans-oesophageal echocardiography to exclude atrial thrombi followed by immediate cardioversion is an appropriate strategy. Patients with chronic AF should be anti-coagulated unless contra-indications exist. It is not clear whether the preferred strategy should be cardioversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm with amiodarone or ventricular rate control of AF combined with anticoagulation to improve outcome including symptoms, morbidity and survival. Electrical cardioversion has a high initial success rate but there is also a high risk of early relapse. Amiodarone currently appears the most effective and safest therapy for maintaining sinus rhythm post-cardioversion. Digoxin is fairly ineffective at controlling ventricular rate during exercise. Addition of a beta-blocker reduces ventricular rate and improves symptoms. Whether digoxin is required in addition to beta-blockade for the control of AF in this setting is currently under investigation. If pharmacological therapy is ineffective or not tolerated then atrio-ventricular node ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation should be considered. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of controlled clinical trial data for the management of AF among patients with heart failure. The interaction between AF and heart failure means that neither can be treated optimally without treating both. Presently treatment should be on a case by case basis.     

The management of atrial fibrillation in heart failure

Opinion statement The development of atrial fibrillation (AF) can greatly complicate the course of heart failure (HF). Although recent trials have indicated the nonsuperiority of a rhythm control strategy in the general population with AF, this may not apply to patients with HF. We feel strongly that AF be treated aggressively in patients with HF, defaulting toward an initial rhythm control strategy, to avoid the hemodynamic detriment of irregular rapid ventricular response and the development of tachycardia-related myopathy. The index episode is treated with cardioversion and antiarrhythmic therapy. If significant benefit is demonstrated, the rhythm control strategy is maintained, to the point of catheter ablation for AF if necessary. If there is no change in cardiac performance or symptoms after cardioversion, strict rate control is enforced, to the point of atrioventricular node ablation and pacing if necessary.     

Beta-blockers and 1-year clinical outcomes in hospitalized heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVETo assess the association between beta-blockers and 1-year clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and further explore this association that differs by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) level.METHODSWe enrolled hospitalized HF patients with AF from China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events Prospective Heart Failure Study. COX proportional hazard regression models were employed to calculate hazard ratio of beta-blockers. The primary outcome was all-cause death.RESULTSAmong 1762 HF patients with AF (756 women [41.4%]), 1041 (56%) received beta-blockers at discharge and 1272 (72.2%) had an LVEF > 40%. During one year follow up, all-cause death occurred in 305 (17.3%), cardiovascular death occurred in 203 patients (11.5%), and rehospitalizations for HF occurred in 622 patients (35.2%). After adjusting for demographic characteristics, social economic status, smoking status, medical history, anthropometric characteristics, and medications used at discharge, the use of beta-blockers at discharge was not associated with all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.86; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.65−1.12; P = 0.256], cardiovascular death (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52−1.11; P = 0.160), or the composite outcome of all-cause death and HF rehospitalization (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.82−1.14; P = 0.687) in the entire cohort. There were no significant interactions between use of beta-blockers at discharge and LVEF with respect to all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or composite outcome. In the adjusted models, the use of beta-blockers at discharge was not associated with all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or composite outcome across the different levels of LVEF: reduced (< 40%), mid-range (40%−49%), or preserved LVEF (≥ 50%). CONCLUSIONAmong HF patients with AF, the use of beta-blockers at discharge was not associated with 1-year clinical outcomes, regardless of LVEF.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of death and there are approximately 64.3 million patients with HF worldwide.^[1] Among them, atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and presents in up to half of HF patients; its prevalence is even higher in those with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).^[2] Given the association between AF and worse prognosis in HF patients,^[3] we need to consider the presence of AF in the treatment of such patients. Beta-blockers are important medications to improve outcomes in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).^[4] However, an individual-level meta-analysis suggested beta-blockers did not improve survival of HFrEF patients with concomitant AF.^[5] Moreover, current trials have not found sufficient evidence of survival benefits of beta-blockers in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).^[6,7] But the use of beta-blockers was common in HFpEF patients,^[8,9] partly because the treatment for complications, such as AF.^[4,10] Whether beta-blockers would appear to be ineffective in long-term prognosis in HFrEF patients with AF, and whether this also holds true in those with preserved LVEF are uncertain. The individual-level meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials mainly consisted of HFrEF patients with AF, and only included 73 HFpEF patients with AF, which could make it difficult to draw a reliable conclusion.^[6] Despite lack of evidence, the current guidelines recommend beta-blockers as first-line heart rate control treatment in HFrEF/HFpEF patients with AF. ^[4,10]To fill these knowledge gaps, we explored the association between use of beta-blockers at discharge and 1-year clinical outcomes in a large prospective cohort study of hospitalized HF patients with AF, and further explored this association that differs by LVEF level.     

Optimal heart failure therapy and successful cardioversion in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness, safety, and other factors associated with success of cardioversion (CV) of atrial fibrillation (AF) have not yet been evaluated in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. We studied 148 consecutive patients with left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction < or = 45%), who underwent electrical CV for AF in our department. The patients had New York Heart Association heart failure ranging from class II to IV. The overall CV success rate was 71%. We relied on univariate and multivariate regression and sought variables influencing success rate. Conversion success did not correlate with New York Heart Association class. Instead, we found that the greatest predictor was the degree of heart failure treatment. Patients receiving beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotension receptor blockers, plus mineralocorticoid receptor blockers had the greatest chance for conversion success. Success was more likely in patients with coronary artery disease (91%) than in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Cardioversion is a safe and effective method for the restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with AF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Our findings underscore the value of aggressive heart failure treatment before CV in patients with AF.     

Management of atrial fibrillation in patients with congestive heart failure

An increase in the prevalence of both atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure is occurring in part because of the demographic shift toward an aging population. These two clinical entities often coexist in the same patient, resulting in the worsening of symptoms and prognosis, rendering their management even more challenging. A large clinical trial is currently examining whether a rhythm-control strategy is superior to a rate-control strategy in patients with congestive heart failure. New nonpharmacologic therapies such as pulmonary vein isolation are undergoing clinical investigation and may also alter the management of these patients. At present, therapy for atrial fibrillation in patients with congestive heart failure should aim first at controlling heart rate to provide symptomatic relief; then sinus rhythm should be restored if symptoms persist or if congestive heart failure worsens. For a more definitive approach in managing these patients, the authors await further clinical trial data.     

Management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic heart failure (CHF) are two major and even growing cardiovascular conditions that often coexist. However, few data are available to guide treatment of AF in patients with CHF. This review summarizes current literature concerning the following topics: (i) prognostic relevance of AF in patients with CHF, (ii) relevance and strategies of rhythm and rate control in patients with AF and CHF, and (iii) options for prevention of AF in patients with ventricular dysfunction. In conclusion, AF is associated with increased mortality in CHF patients. However, it is not clear whether there is a causal relationship. Emerging strategies to prevent the occurrence of AF are promising tools that might improve quality of life and survival in patients with CHF.     

心脏再同步治疗在心功能不良伴心房颤动患者中的临床疗效分析

目的 探讨心房颤动（房颤）患者经过房室结消融后心脏再同步治疗(CRT)的临床疗效。方法 将80例在本院接受CRT的心功能不良患者按术前心律分为两组：房颤组（15例）、窦性心律组(65例),房颤组患者在CRT治疗同时行房室结消融。房室结消融和CRT术前收集患者基本信息如年龄、性别、心功能（NYHA分级）、病程、糖尿病和高...     

胺碘酮对心力衰竭并心房颤动病人的疗效观察

目的：就胺碘酮对心力衰竭并心房颤动病人的疗效观察进行探讨。方法选择我院2008年11月到2013年1月所收治的心力衰竭并心房颤动患者50例,随机将所有患者分为2组,分别是治疗组、对照组,。对照组采用常规治疗方法,而治疗组在此基础上增加静脉注射胺碘酮溶液及口服胺碘酮。结果治疗组有效率为96％,对照组有效率为82％,二者存在着较为明显的差异,具有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。与治疗前相比,两组患者在治疗后血压值都出现了较为明显的变化,都达到正常水平,存在着统计学意义（P〈0.05）;但两组之间差异不存在着统计学意义（P〉0.05）。两组患者在治疗后都没有出现肾功能、肝功能损害、恶性心律失常、不可耐受性低血压等严重不良反应。结论胺碘酮对心力衰竭并心房颤动病人的疗效较佳,安全有效,无较为严重的不良反应,可以作为首选治疗药物,值得推广应用。     

Statins and prevention of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

Statins are highly effective and widely used lipid-lowering agents in clinical practice, that also display a number of pleiotropic properties beyond cholesterol lowering. Several trials have demonstrated that they reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in both primary and secondary prevention. Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) represent 2 world-wide epidemics. Recent evidence suggests that statins may have beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HF, and specifically in the prevention of AF. The anti-arrhythmic mechanisms of statins regarding AF prevention in HF patients are not fully understood but are possibly related to their pleiotropic effects including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, atrial remodeling attenuation, ion channel stabilization, and autonomic nervous system regulation.     

β受体阻滞剂治疗心力衰竭合并心房颤动的研究进展

近年来有研究表明β受体阻滞剂在心力衰竭合并窦性心律或房颤中的临床获益有所不同,然而目前仍缺乏大规模确切的临床证据。本文主要阐述β受体阻滞剂治疗心力衰竭合并心房颤动的作用机制以及不同β受体阻滞剂治疗此类疾病的主要临床研究进展。     

肺静脉隔离治疗心力衰竭患者的心房颤动

<正> 肺静脉隔离被越来越多地用于治疗心力衰竭患者的心房颤动(房颤)。本研究为前瞻性多中心临床试验,我们将有症状的、药物不能控制的房颤、射血分数(LVEF)≤40%、纽约心脏协会心功能分级(NYHA)Ⅱ～Ⅲ级的患者随机分配到肺静脉隔离治疗组或房室结消融     

Anti-thrombotic strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure

Atrial fibrillation occurs commonly in the setting of congestive heart failure and, in fact can cause left ventricular dysfunction due to a rapid ventricular response over time, termed tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy. The combination of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure leads to a high risk of stroke for the patient and appropriate antithrombotic therapy can minimize this incidence of stroke. Stroke risk can be markedly reduced by treatment with warfarin and complications of anticoagulation minimized by close attention to maintaining the INR between 2.0 and 3.0.     

心力衰竭合并心房颤动患者的心脏再同步化治疗

心力衰竭患者中有很大一部分合并心房颤动,这类患者也可存在不同程度的机械不同步运动,心脏再同步化治疗(CRT)可以改善他们的心功能、运动耐量及生活质量。但这些患者容易产生双室起搏不完全,使CRT有效性明显降低。有试验证明房室结消融能提高这类患者CRT的成功率。该文将对心力衰竭合并心房颤动的流行病学特征、病理机制、CRT及房室结消融在CRT中的必要性进行叙述。     

Relationship between inflammatory markers and clinical patterns of atrial fibrillation in patients with congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND: Occurence of atrial fibrillation (AF) adversely affects left atrial size and cardiac function. This arrhythmia is also associated with an increase of plasma CRP and fibrinogen concentration. It is not clear whether elevated levels of inflammatory markers in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) are associated with AF, clinical symptoms or adverse cardiac remodelling. AIM: To investigate the association between levels of inflammatory markers and selected clinical and echocardiographic parameters as well as used treatment in the population of CHF patients with various forms of AF. METHODS: The cross-sectional study included 99 patients with CHF divided into 3 groups. Group I included patients with sinus rhythm. Group II consisted of patients admitted to hospital with AF and discharged with sinus rhythm (the category of paroxysmal and persistent AF). Group III comprised patients with permanent AF. In all patients plasma CRP and fibrinogen concentrations were measured and echocardiographic examination was carried out. Left atrial dimension (LA), ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean CRP concentration in group III (5.83+/-5.36 mg/l) was significantly higher than in group I (p=0.001) and group II (p=0.033). In the group with permanent AF mean fibrinogen concentration was elevated to a higher level (391.0+/-77.3 mg/dl) than in group II (p=0.007) and group I (p=0.099). Mean LA and RV dimensions and RVSP in group III were significantly higher than in group I and group II. Multivariable analysis revealed that plasma CRP concentration was significantly associated with the presence of arterial hypertension (p <0.001) and LA enlargement (p=0.007). A significant association between fibrinogen level and CRP level (p=0.038), presence of permanent AF (p=0.045) and metabolic syndrome (p <0.05) was found. Values of ln CRP were significantly correlated with LA diameter (r=0.24; p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Increased plasma CRP level in patients with CHF were significantly associated with arterial hypertension and LA enlargement. Permanent form of AF and CRP level have been shown to be significantly associated with increased plasma fibrinogen concentration in the course of CHF.     

Predictors of new onset atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure

Introduction

Stroke associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) is more frequent in heart failure. It is unknown what variables predict future AF in these patients and how AF might evolve over time. We investigated this in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) where AF detection is optimal.

Methods

Single centre, retrospective, observational cohort study. All ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients with dual chamber, primary prevention ICD implants between Aug 2003 and Dec 2009 were screened and included if at implant, they had no known AF history. Nine variables were analysed. AF was defined as any atrial tachyarrhythmia ≥ 180 bpm and ≥ 30 s. Multivariable, binary logistic regression models were built by adding variables significant in the univariate models. Variables were retained in the final multivariate models if p < 0.05.

Results

n = 197 met the inclusion criteria (85.8% male, median age: 66.8 years). After median follow-up for 2.8 years, 44.2% developed AF. After univariate analysis, the baseline variables associated with AF after implant were age, NYHA class and renal impairment (RI, defined eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m²) (p < 0.05). After multivariable analysis, the only variable which was associated with AF was RI (HR: 2.04 (CI: 1.10–3.79)). Two baseline variables were independently associated with all-cause mortality: RI (HR: 2.42 (1.14–5.12)) and non-white ethnicity.

Conclusion

RI at time of implant was independently associated with both future AF and all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up. RI was a stronger predictor of AF than age. Those patients with heart failure and RI should be regularly screened for asymptomatic AF, regardless of age, to ensure that stroke prophylaxis may be initiated.