Myocardial Effects of Aldosterone Antagonism in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Background Spironolactone may have prognostic benefit in selected patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This study assessed the myocardial tissue effects of spironolactone in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Methods and Results A 1:1 randomized controlled study of 6 months of spironolactone versus control in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was change in myocardial extracellular volume fraction by cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a surrogate of diffuse fibrosis. Of 55 randomized patients, 40 (20 women; age, 75.2±5.9 years) completed follow-up (19 treatment, 21 control). A significant change in extracellular volume over the study period was not seen (treatment, 28.7±3.7% versus 27.7±3.4% [P=0.14]; controls, 27.6±3.4% versus 28.3±4.4% [P=0.14]); however, the rate of extracellular volume expansion was decreased by spironolactone (-1.0±2.4% versus 0.8±2.2%). Indexed left ventricular mass decreased with treatment (104.4±26.6 versus 94.0±20.6 g/m2; P=0.001) but not in controls (101.4±29.4 versus 104.0±32.8 g/m2; P=0.111). Extracellular mass decreased by 13.8% (15.1±4.8 versus 13.0±3.4 g/m2; P=0.003), and cellular mass decreased by 8.3% (37.6±10.0 versus 34.3±7.9 g/m2; P=0.001) with spironolactone, but was static in controls. Conclusions Spironolactone did not lead to significant change in extracellular volume. However, spironolactone did decrease rate of extracellular expansion, with a decrease in the mass of both cellular and extracellular myocardial compartments. These data point to the mechanism of action of spironolactone in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, including a direct tissue effect with a reduction in rate of myocardial fibrosis.

Electrocardiogram interpretation and arrhythmia management: a primary and secondary care survey.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing desire among service commissioners to treat arrhythmia in primary care. Accurate interpretation of the electrocardiogram (ECG) is fundamental to this. ECG interpretation has previously been shown to vary widely but there is little recent data. AIM: To examine the interpretation of ECGs in primary and secondary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey of participants' interpretation of six ECGs and hypothetical management of patients based on those ECGs, at primary care educational events, and a cardiology department in Leeds. METHOD: A total of 262 primary care clinicians and 20 cardiology clinicians were surveyed via questionnaire. Answers were compared with expert electrophysiologist opinion. RESULTS: In primary care, abnormal ECGs were interpreted as normal by 23% of responders. ST elevation and prolonged QT were incorrectly interpreted as normal by 1% and 22%, respectively. In cardiology, abnormal ECGs were interpreted as normal by 3%. CONCLUSION: ECG provision and interpretation remains inconsistent in both primary and secondary care. Primary care practitioners are less experienced and less confident with ECG interpretation than cardiologists, and require support in this area.

Treating and managing atrial fibrillation.

The management of atrial fibrillation is complex and is influenced by the type of AF, the severity of symptoms, underlying disease and patient choice. The aim of treatment is to alleviate symptoms, prevent strokes and reduce other complications, such as heart failure. The incidence of AF is increasing due to an ageing population and most health professionals will encounter patients with AF during their career. A widespread knowledge of AF management among the nursing profession is important to ensure that appropriate treatment and patient support are provided. This article is the second in a two-part series on AF. Part one discussed the importance of detecting and treating AF and screening strategies. This second part discusses the management of AF and treatment options, using recent guidelines.

Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia and the likelihood of having it increases with age. If left untreated it can lead to heart failure and is a significant risk factor for stroke but risk can be greatly reduced with oral anticoagulation. Many people with AF remain asymptomatic, but the risk of stroke remains the same. Simple screening methods will help detect those at risk. Many of those with a diagnosis and at high risk of stroke remain untreated. This two-part series aims to raise awareness of the importance of early detection and appropriate treatment. Part one discusses the complications linked to AF and explores the nurse's role in screening; part two will look at management.

The use of anticoagulants in the management of atrial fibrillation among general practices in England.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the use of oral anticoagulants (AC) and antiplatelet agents (AP) in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) among patients in primary care in England. DESIGN: Epidemiological study. SETTING: 1857 general practices in England representing a practice population of 13.1 million registered patients. PATIENTS: 231,833 patients with a history of AF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was AC and AP use by CHADS2 score and age groups <30 years, 30-49 years, 50-64 years, 65-79 years and >79 years. RESULTS: 231,833 patients with a history of AF were identified, giving a prevalence among uploading practices of 1.76%. Prevalence of AF varied markedly between practices, related to differing practice age profiles. The total number of patients with AF in a practice was strongly predicted by the number of patients aged 65 years and over in the practice. 57.0% of the AF population had a CHADS2 score ≥2 and 83.7%≥1. 114,212 (49.3%) patients received AC therapy. AC uptake increased with increasing CHADS2 score up to a score of 3, but thereafter reached a plateau. Among 132 099 patients with a CHADS2 score ≥2, 72,211 (54.7%) received an AC, 14 987(11.3%) were recorded as having a contraindication or having declined AC therapy, leaving 44,901 (34.0%) not on AC therapy and without a recorded contraindication or recorded refusal. Among patients not prescribed an AC, 79.9% were prescribed an AP. The use of AC declined in the elderly (for CHADS2 ≥ 2, 47.4% of patients ≥80 years, compared with 64.5% for patients aged <80 years, p<0.001). By contrast, AP uptake was more prevalent among elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of patients with AF and known risk factors who are eligible for AC do not receive them. There is a high use of AP among patients not receiving AC. Uptake of AC is particularly poor among patients aged 80 years and over.