RESUMO
Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are common conditions that share similar clinical phenotype and frequently coexist. The classification of HF in patients with preserved ejection fraction (> 50%, HFpEF), mid-range reduced EF (40%-49%, HFmrEF) and reduced EF (< 40%, HFrEF) are crucial for optimising the therapeutic approach, as each subgroup responds differently. Beta-blocker constitute an important component of our pharmacological regimen for chronic HF. Beta-blocker administration is reccomended in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction in stable sinus rhythm, due to improvement of symptoms, the better long term-outcome and survival. The beneficial role of beta-blocker use in patients with preserved EF still remain unclear, as no treatment showed a positive impact, regarding morbidity or mortality reduction. The presence of AF in HF patients increases as the disease severity evolves and is associated with a higher rate of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. But more question is the use of betablocker in HF patients irrespective of EF and concomitant AF. There are many conflicting data and publications, regarding the beta blocker benefit in this population. Generally, it is supported an attenuation of beta-blockers beneficial effect in HF patients with AF. A design of more randomised trials/studies with HF patients and concomitant AF may improve our clinical approach of beta-blockers use and identify the patients with HF, who mostly profit from an invasive approach.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Radial artery occlusion (RAO) remains the Achilles' heel of transradial coronary procedures. Standard over lower systemic anticoagulation levels are believed to reduce RAO rates but this is ill-supported by scientific evidence. We compared whether standard in comparison with less intensive anticoagulation was superior in preventing vessel closure. METHODS AND RESULTS: The two arms of this analysis included 731 pooled patients with the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. We assessed forearm arterial access site occlusion rate by unfractionated heparin (UFH) dose in an individual participant data meta-analysis of this randomized study and of consecutive eligible patients from our previous trial. We randomized 308 consecutive patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography with 5 French (5 Fr) catheters without need to crossover to receive 2500 or 5000 UFH units. The primary end-point was the ultrasonographically determined vessel occlusion rate. Incident RAOs in the randomized arm were 15.9% vs. 14%, in the low and standard UFH dose, respectively (p=0.7). Corresponding figures for forearm arterial occlusion rates in the pooled population were 13.0% vs. 9.9% (relative risk: 1.3, 95% confidence interval - CI: 0.88-1.98; p=0.2). Procedural and fluoroscopy duration was less than 15 and 3 min, respectively. The mean UFH dose difference was 3.52 (95% CI: -0.45 to 7.49) units per kilo body weight between occluded (n=84) and patent forearm arteries (n=647); (p=0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Incident forearm arterial occlusions were high despite using 5 Fr catheters for a short-lasting procedure. Systemic anticoagulation with standard over lower UFH dose did not reduce the frequency of RAOs after coronary angiography.