Utility and Validity of the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF Scores in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) represents a significant clinical challenge. Two diagnostic scoring tools have been developed to aid the noninvasive diagnosis of HFpEF: the HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology) and the H2FPEF scoring systems. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of these 2 scoring tools for the diagnosis of HFpEF against a gold standard of invasive evaluation in a cohort of patients with AF. METHODS: The authors recruited consecutive patients with symptomatic AF and preserved ejection fraction who were scheduled for an AF ablation procedure. Gold-standard invasive diagnosis of HFpEF was performed at the AF ablation procedure using mean left atrial pressure at rest and following infusion of 500 mL fluid. Each participant was scored according to the noninvasive HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of these scoring systems in diagnosing HFpEF. RESULTS: In total, 120 participants were recruited. HFpEF was diagnosed invasively in 88 (73.3%) participants, whereas 32 (26.7%) had no HFpEF. Using the HFA-PEFF score, 38 (31.7%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 82 (68.3%) had low/intermediate probability of HFpEF. Using the H2FPEF tool, 72 (60%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 48 (40%) had intermediate probability. A high HFA-PEFF (≥5 points) score could diagnose HFpEF with a sensitivity of 40% and a specificity of 91%, and a high H2FPEF score (≥6 points) could diagnose HFpEF with a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 66%. Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar using both tools (AUC: 0.663 vs 0.707, respectively; P = 0.636). CONCLUSIONS: Against a gold standard of invasively diagnosed HFpEF, the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores demonstrate only moderate accuracy in patients with AF and should be utilized with caution in this cohort of patients. (Characterising Left Atrial Function and Compliance in Atrial Fibrillation; ACTRN12620000639921).

Exercise echocardiography to assess left atrial function in patients with symptomatic AF.

Background: Left atrial (LA) function contributes to the augmentation of cardiac output during exercise. However, LA response to exercise in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. We explored the LA mechanical response to exercise and the association between LA dysfunction and exercise intolerance. Methods: We recruited consecutive patients with symptomatic AF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Participants underwent exercise echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). Two-dimensional and speckle-tracking echocardiography were performed to assess LA function at rest and during exercise. Participants were grouped according to presenting rhythm (AF vs sinus rhythm). The relationship between LA function and cardiorespiratory fitness in patients maintaining SR was assessed using linear regression. Results: Of 177 consecutive symptomatic AF patients awaiting AF ablation, 105 met inclusion criteria; 31 (29.5 %) presented in AF whilst 74 (70.5 %) presented in SR. Patients in SR augmented LA function from rest to exercise, increasing LA emptying fraction (LAEF) and LA reservoir strain. In contrast, patients in AF demonstrated reduced LAEF and reservoir strain at rest, with failure to augment either parameter during exercise. This was associated with reduced VO2Peak compared to those in SR (18.4 ± 5.6 vs 22.5 ± 7.7 ml/kg/min, p = 0.003). In patients maintaining SR, LAEF and reservoir strain at rest and during exercise were associated with VO2Peak, independent of LV function. Conclusion: The maintenance of SR in patients with AF is associated with greater LA reservoir function at rest and greater augmentation with exercise compared to patients in AF. In patients in SR, reduced LA function is associated with reduced exercise tolerance, independent of LV function.

Identification of Subclinical Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) commonly coexist. We hypothesize that patients with symptomatic AF but without overt clinical HF commonly exhibit subclinical HFpEF according to established hemodynamic criteria. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to use invasive hemodynamics to investigate the prevalence and implications of subclinical HFpEF in AF ablation patients. METHODS: Consecutive symptomatic AF ablation patients were prospectively recruited. Diagnosis of subclinical HFpEF was undertaken by invasive assessment of left atrial pressure (LAP). Participants had HFpEF if the baseline mean LAP was >15 mm Hg and early HFpEF if the mean LAP was >15 mm Hg after a 500-mL fluid challenge. LA compliance was assessed invasively by monitoring the LAP and LA diameter during direct LA infusion of 15 mL/kg normal saline. LA compliance was calculated as Δ LA diameter/ΔLAP. LA cardiomyopathy was further studied with exercise echocardiography and electrophysiology study. Functional impact was evaluated using cardiopulmonary exercise testing and the AF Symptom Severity questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 120 participants, 57 (47.5%) had HFpEF, 31 (25.8%) had early HFpEF, and 32 (26.7%) had no HFpEF. Both HFpEF and early HFpEF were associated with lower LA compliance compared with those without HFpEF (P < 0.001). Participants with HFpEF and early HFpEF also displayed decreased LA emptying fraction (P = 0.004), decreased LA voltage (P = 0.001), decreased VO2peak (P < 0.001), and increased AF symptom burden (P = 0.002) compared with those without HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical HFpEF is common in AF ablation patients and is characterized by a LA cardiomyopathy, decreased cardiopulmonary reserve and increased symptom burden. The diagnosis of HFpEF may identify patients with AF with the potential to benefit from novel HFpEF therapies. (Characterising Left Atrial Function and Compliance in Atrial Fibrillation; ACTRN12620000639921).

Hypertension and atrial fibrillation.

Hypertension is the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor underlying atrial fibrillation and is present in up to 40% of patients with atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, attributable risk studies have shown that a history of hypertension contributes to up to 24% of incident atrial fibrillation. New data suggest that even early forms of hypertension (prehypertension and aortic stiffness) are associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation development. Hypertension and prehypertension are therefore critical mediators for the development of atrial fibrillation. Mechanisms for the association between hypertension and atrial fibrillation include diffuse electro-structural changes to the left atrium, driven by the haemodynamic and neurohormonal influences of hypertension and other, frequently coexisting, cardiovascular risk factors. Management of hypertension in atrial fibrillation should focus not only on blood pressure reduction but also on a comprehensive risk factor modification strategy. Such strategies have been shown to be associated with significant improvements in atrial fibrillation symptom burden as well as improved arrhythmia-free survival and reversal of the progression of atrial fibrillation. These strategies should focus on dietary modifications as well as prescribed exercise programmes involving a multidisciplinary team and patient-centred atrial fibrillation care. Risk factor management, supplemented by antihypertensive medications as needed, provides the optimum strategy for improving outcomes and even reversing the natural progression of atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertension.

Cardiorespiratory fitness, obesity and left atrial function in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Background: Low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and obesity are related to the development and maintenance of atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to determine the association between CRF, obesity and left atrial (LA) mechanical parameters in patients with AF. Methods: A cohort of 154 consecutive paroxysmal and persistent AF patients (Age: 62 ± 10, 26% female) referred for exercise stress testing and transthoracic echocardiography were included. We included patients in sinus rhythm with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who were able to complete a maximal exercise test. Left atrial strain in the reservoir (LASr), booster (LASb) and conduit (LASc) phases were assessed using dedicated software. LA stiffness, emptying fraction (LAEF) and LA to LV ratio were calculated using previously described formulas. Results: CRF was positively associated with LAEF (ß = 1.3, 95% CI 0.1-2.3, p = 0.02), reservoir (ß = 1.5, 95% CI 0.9-2.1, p < 0.001), booster (ß = 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.2, p < 0.001) and conduit strain (ß = 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.1, p = 0.001). We observed an inverse association between CRF and both LA stiffness index (ß = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.03)-(-0.01), p < 0.001) and LA to LV ratio (ß = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.04)-(-0.01), p < 0.001). Obese patients had significantly higher indexed LA volumes compared to overweight and normal BMI patients. The association between obesity and measures of LA function and stiffness did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Among AF patients, higher CRF was independently associated with greater LA function and compliance. Obesity was associated with higher LA volumes yet preserved mechanical function.

Frequency and prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in acute pulmonary embolism: A pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize data on the prevalence/incidence, risk factors and prognosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (aPE). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify all published studies providing relevant data through December 12, 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis method was used to pool estimates. RESULTS: We included 27 studies reporting data from a pooled population of 819,380 patients. The prevalence rates were 11.3% for pre-existing AF, 4.7% for newly diagnosed AF, and 13.2% for prevalent (total) AF. Predictors of newly diagnosed AF (from one study) included congestive heart failure (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.33, 95% CI: 1.81-6.12), ischemic heart disease (aOR 3.25, 95% CI: 1.65-6.39), massive PE (aOR 2.67, 95% CI: 1.19-5.99). Overall, AF was associated with increased risk of short-term (aOR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.44-1.64) and long-term mortality (aOR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.26-1.97). In subgroup analyses, all types of AF were associated with increased risk of short-term mortality: pre-existing AF (aOR 1.90, 95% CI: 1.59-2.27), newly diagnosed AF (aOR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.18-1.93), and prevalent AF (aOR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.42-1.60). Pre-existing AF (aOR 2.08, 95% CI: 1.27-3.42) and prevalent AF (aOR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.02-1.63) were also associated with higher long-term mortality. CONCLUSION: AF is present in about one in eight patients with aPE, and is associated with increased short- and long-term mortality. AF might improve risk stratification in patients with aPE.

Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Prognosis, and Management.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) have similar risk factors, frequently coexist, and potentiate each other in a vicious cycle. Evidence suggests the presence of AF in both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) increases the risk of all-cause mortality and stroke, particularly when AF is incident. Catheter ablation may be an effective strategy in controlling symptoms and improving quality of life in AF-HFrEF. Strong data guiding management of AF-HFpEF are lacking largely due to its challenging diagnosis. Improving outcomes associated with these coexistent conditions requires further careful investigation.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: An alternative paradigm to explain the clinical implications of atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with exercise intolerance, stroke, and all-cause mortality. However, whether this can be solely attributable to the arrhythmia itself or alternative mechanisms remains controversial. Heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) commonly coexists with AF and may contribute to the poor outcomes associated with AF. Indeed, several invasive hemodynamic studies have confirmed that patients with AF are at increased risk of underlying HFpEF and that the presence of HFpEF may have important prognostic implications in these patients. Mechanistically, AF and HFpEF are closely linked. Both conditions are driven by the presence of common cardiovascular risk factors and are associated with left atrial (LA) myopathy, characterized by mechanical and electrical dysfunction. Progressive worsening of this left atrial (LA) myopathy is associated with both increased AF burden and worsening HFpEF. In addition, there is growing evidence to suggest that worsening LA myopathy is associated with poorer outcomes in both conditions and that reversal of the LA myopathy could improve outcomes. In this review article, we will present the epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence underlying the common coexistence of AF and HFpEF, discuss the importance of a progressive LA myopathy in the pathogenesis of both conditions, and review the evidence from important invasive hemodynamic studies. Finally, we will review the prognostic implications of HFpEF in patients with AF and discuss the relative merits of AF burden reduction vs HFpEF reduction in improving outcomes of patients with AF and HFpEF.

Self-reported physical activity and atrial fibrillation risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although physical activity (PA) is an important component of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment, its role in atrial fibrillation (AF) risk is less well established. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically summarize the evidence pertaining to the relationship of PA and risk of AF. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for prospective cohort studies reporting the risk of AF associated with a specific PA volume through March 2020. From each study, we extracted the risk associated with a given PA level, in comparison with insufficiently active ("inactive") individuals. The reported risk was normalized to metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-minutes per week. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare AF risk between those who met and those who did not meet PA recommendations (450 MET-minutes per week), and a dose-response analysis between the level of PA and the risk of AF was performed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies reporting data from 1,464,539 individuals (median age 55.3 years; 51.7% female) were included. Individuals achieving guideline-recommended level of PA had a significantly lower risk of AF (hazard ratio 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.90-0.97; P = .001). Dose-response analysis showed that PA levels up to 1900 MET-minutes per week were associated with a lower risk of AF, with less certainty beyond that level. CONCLUSION: PA at guideline-recommended levels and above are associated with a significantly lower AF risk. However, at 2000 MET-minutes per week and beyond, the benefit is less clear.

Risk Factor Management Before and After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly recognized as the cardiac electrophysiologic manifestation of a multifactorial systemic disease. Several risk factors for development of AF have been identified; many are modifiable. There is evidence to suggest that aggressive management of modifiable risk factors has potential to significantly reduce the burden of AF, before and after AF ablation. Specific risk factor management (RFM) clinics have been shown effective in conferring these benefits into tangible improvements in large cohorts of patients. This review discusses the evidence behind RFM as a key adjunctive management strategy alongside AF ablation and suggests a model for RFM in clinics.

Embryology of the Cardiac Conduction System Relevant to Arrhythmias.

Embryogenesis of the heart involves the complex cellular differentiation of slow-conducting primary myocardium into the rapidly conducting chamber myocardium of the adult. However, small areas of relatively undifferentiated cells remain to form components of the adult cardiac conduction system (CCS) and nodal tissues. Further investigation has revealed additional areas of nodal-like tissues outside of the established CCS. The embryologic origins of these areas are similar to those of the adult CCS. Under pathologic conditions, these areas can give rise to important clinical arrhythmias. Here, we review the embryologic basis for these proarrhythmic structures within the heart.