Non-Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure-From Physical Activity to Electrical Therapies: A Literature Review.

Heart failure (HF) represents a significant global health challenge that is still responsible for increasing morbidity and mortality despite advancements in pharmacological treatments. This review investigates the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of HF, examining lifestyle measures, physical activity, and the role of some electrical therapies such as catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). Structured exercise training is a cornerstone in this field, demonstrating terrific improvements in functional status, quality of life, and mortality risk reduction, particularly in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, premature ventricular beats, and ventricular tachycardia aids in improving left ventricular function by reducing arrhythmic burden. CRT remains a key intervention for selected HF patients, helping achieve left ventricular reverse remodeling and improving symptoms. Additionally, the emerging therapy of CCM provides a novel opportunity for patients who do not meet CRT criteria or are non-responders. Integrating non-pharmacological interventions such as digital health alongside specific medications is key for optimizing outcomes in HF management. It is imperative to tailor approaches to individual patients in this diverse patient population to maximize benefits. Further research is warranted to improve treatment strategies and enhance patient outcomes in HF management.

Real-world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (L-VAD) implantation is increasingly used in patients with heart failure (HF) and most patients also have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Limited data are available on the incidence of ICD therapies and complications in this special setting. The aim of this study was to analyze the real-world incidence and predictors of ICD therapies, complications and interactions between ICD and L-VAD. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective observational study in patients with advanced HF implanted with ICD and a continuous-flow L-VAD, followed-up in five advanced HF centers in Northern Italy. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients (89.7% male, median age 59, 48.3% with ischemic etiology) were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 21 months, 66 patients (28.2%) experienced an appropriate ICD therapy, 22 patients (9.4%) an inappropriate ICD therapy, and 17 patients (7.3%) suffered from an interaction between ICD and L-VAD. The composite outcome of all ICD-related complications was reported in 41 patients (17.5%), and 121 (51.7%) experienced an L-VAD-related complication. At multivariable analysis, an active ventricular tachycardia (VT) zone and a prior ICD generator replacement were independent predictors of ICD therapies and of total ICD-related complications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world patients with both L-VAD and ICD experience a high rate of ICD therapies and complications. Our findings suggest the importance of tailoring device programming in order to minimize the incidence of unnecessary ICD therapies, thus sparing the need for ICD generator replacement, a procedure associated to a high risk of complications.

A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing radiofrequency ablation versus pharmacological therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are both associated with worse prognosis and often coexist in the same patients. Whether catheter ablation (CA) is superior to pharmacological therapy in reducing major clinical endpoints in patients with AF and HF is still unsettled. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing CA with medical therapy (MT) in this population. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes between patients with AF and HF treated with CA or MT. The studied outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and 6-min walking test (6MWT) improvement. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies counting 41,377 patients (3611 treated with CA and 37,766 with MT) were included in the analysis. The random-effect model revealed a clear trend in favor of CA in reducing unexpected HF hospitalization (RR 0.72; 95%CI 0.51-1.00; P = 0.05), all-cause death (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.59-1.01; P = 0.06), all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.68-1.03; P = 0.09), and the composite of HF hospitalization and death (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.58-1.02; P = 0.07), compared with MT. Patients treated with CA experienced a better improvement in LVEF (mean difference 6.17; 95%CI 2.98-9.37; P = 0.0002) and 6MWT (mean difference 13.70; 95%CI 3.95-23.45; P = 0.006). When the analysis was limited to randomized controlled trial, CA was found to significantly reduce all-cause death (RR 0.68; 95%CI 0.54-0.86; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: As compared to MT, CA is associated with a better improvement in functional capacity and LVEF, and with a reduction in major clinical endpoints in patients with HF and AF.