Adherence to optimal heart rate control in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insight from a survey of heart rate in heart failure in Sweden (HR-HF study).

INTRODUCTION: Despite that heart rate (HR) control is one of the guideline-recommended treatment goals for heart failure (HF) patients, implementation has been painstakingly slow. Therefore, it would be important to identify patients who have not yet achieved their target heart rates and assess possible underlying reasons as to why the target rates are not met. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey of HR in patients with HF in Sweden (HR-HF survey) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, observational longitudinal study designed to investigate the state of the art in the control of HR in HF and to explore potential underlying mechanisms for suboptimal HR control with focus on awareness of and adherence to guidelines for HR control among physicians who focus on the contributing role of beta-blockers (BBs). RESULTS: In 734 HF patients the mean HR was 68 ± 12 beats per minute (bpm) (37.2% of the patients had a HR >70 bpm). Patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n = 425) had the highest HR (70 ± 13 bpm, with 42% >70 bpm), followed by HF with preserved ejection fraction and HF with mid-range ejection fraction. Atrial fibrillation, irrespective of HF type, had higher HR than sinus rhythm. A similar pattern was observed with BB treatment. Moreover, non-achievement of the recommended target HR (<70 bpm) in HFrEF and sinus rhythm was unrelated to age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular diseases, and comorbidities, but was related to EF and the clinical decision of the physician. Approximately 50% of the physicians considered a HR of >70 bpm optimal and an equal number considered a HR of >70 bpm too high, but without recommending further action. Furthermore, suboptimal HR control cannot be attributed to the use of BBs because there was neither a difference in use of BBs nor an interaction with BBs for HR >70 bpm compared with HR <70 bpm. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal control of HR was noted in HFrEF with sinus rhythm, which appeared to be attributable to physician decision making rather than to the use of BBs. Therefore, our results underline the need for greater attention to HR control in patients with HFrEF and sinus rhythm and thus a potential for improved HF care.

Sinus rhythm maintenance following DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is not improved by temporary precardioversion treatment with oral verapamil.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the effects of pretreatment with verapamil on the maintenance of sinus rhythm after direct current (DC) cardioversion. DESIGN: Randomised, active control, open label, parallel group comparison of verapamil versus digoxin. SETTINGS: Multicentre study in three teaching and three non-teaching hospitals in Sweden. PATIENTS: 100 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) of at least four weeks' duration and indications for cardioversion were assigned randomly to two groups, one treated with verapamil (verapamil group) and the other with digoxin (digoxin group) before cardioversion. Fifty patients were assigned randomly to each treatment arm. After dropout of four patients from the digoxin group and seven patients from the verapamil group, data obtained from 89 patients were analysed. INTERVENTIONS: After randomly assigned pretreatment with either verapamil or digoxin for four weeks, DC cardioversion was performed. If sinus rhythm was restored then verapamil treatment was discontinued. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The rate of AF recurrence was assessed one, four, eight, and 12 weeks after cardioversion. RESULTS: 6 patients in the verapamil treated group and none in the digoxin treated group reverted to sinus rhythm spontaneously (p < 0.05). DC cardioversion restored sinus rhythm in 24 of 37 (65%) patients in the verapamil group and 41 of 46 patients (89%) in the digoxin group (p < 0.05). After 12 weeks' follow up 28% (13 of 46) of digoxin pretreated patients versus 9% (four of 43) of verapamil pretreated patients remained in sinus rhythm (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with verapamil alone does not improve maintenance of sinus rhythm after DC cardioversion in patients with AF. The rate of spontaneous cardioversion may be improved by verapamil.

[Atrial fibrillation--new knowledge yields new therapeutic possibilities]. / Förmaksflimmer--ny kunskap ger nya behandlingsmöjligheter.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia prompting treatment. Advances in our knowledge of the pathophysiology of AF provide the basis for new and improved treatment modalities. Thus, focal excitation and localised impulse conduction defects are possible trigger factors which can be counteracted by focal ablation and pacing synchronisation, respectively. Perpetuation of AF, caused by continuous multisite re-entry, is promoted by successive shortening of repolarisation. Internal defibrillation and anatomical limitation of re-entry are treatments that counteract perpetuation of the arrhythmia. Current knowledge of AF and the application of new treatments are discussed by the Lund AF research group.

Attenuation of electrical remodelling in chronic atrial fibrillation following oral treatment with verapamil.

AIMS: Electrical remodelling with shortening of the atrial refractory period and increased fibrillatory rate occurs after onset of atrial fibrillation and can be attenuated by pre-treatment with intravenous verapamil. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether already established fibrillatory-induced shortening of atrial fibrillatory cycle length could be reversed with oral verapamil. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirteen patients (nine men; mean age 67 years) with chronic atrial fibrillation (CAF) were studied. The dominant atrial cycle length (DACL) was estimated non-invasively using the frequency analysis of fibrillatory ECG (FAF-ECG) method. Measurements were repeated following treatment with slow release oral verapamil. DACL increased from 147 +/- 13 ms to 156 +/- 21 ms after 1 day (P=0.02), to 164 +/- 18 ms after 5 days (P=0.005) and finally to 160 +/- 16 ms after 6 weeks (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: Long-term oral treatment with verapamil increases the DACL significantly in patients with CAF. The prolongation is evident after 1 day and is further developed during the first 5 days of treatment. Since DACL is believed to be an index of refractoriness, the findings of the present study suggest that this treatment increases the atrial refractory period in patients with CAF.