Plasma FABP4 levels are associated with left atrial fat volume in persistent atrial fibrillation and predict recurrence after catheter ablation.

BACKGROUND: Imaging techniques have shown the association between left atrial adipose tissue (LAAT) volume and atrial fibrillation (AF) risk. PURPOSE: To analyze 1) adipokines in peripheral and atrial plasma from patients undergoing AF ablation; 2) its association with LAAT volume measured by multislice CT and 3) its predictive value for AF recurrence. METHODS: Seventy consecutive patients undergoing AF catheter ablation were screened. Blood samples were extracted from the left atrium and peripheral vein before catheter ablation. Multiplex fluorimetric immunoassay, enzyme-linked immunoassay and Western blot techniques were used for analyzing some adipokines, fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP4), and leptin and perilipin analysis, respectively. Patients were followed up with clinical visits until one year after ablation. Generalized additive regression (GAM) was used for determining the best indicator of LAAT volume. Logistic regression analysis determined the best predictor of AF recurrence after persistent AF catheter ablation. RESULTS: Our results showed 1) differences in the levels of FABP4 between peripheral and left atrial blood samples. 2) persistent AF patients had higher LAAT volume than those with paroxysmal AF (5.12 ±â€¯2.76 vs. 3.82 ±â€¯1.81 mL; p < 0.036). FABP4 was the best adipokine associated with LAAT in persistent AF (p < 0.01) 3) and predictive value for AF recurrence after catheter ablation (AUC-ROC 0.883 with 95% CI 0.739-1.028). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma FABP4 levels, which were associated with LAAT volume in persistent AF, can be predictors of recurrence after catheter ablation. Whether persistent AF patients require more intensive management and monitoring according to FABP4 deserves further investigation.

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: Clinical characteristics, determinants and prognosis. CARDIOCHUS-CHOP registry.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude and the prognostic impact of recovering left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF) and systolic dysfunction is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFrecEF in an HF population. METHODS: 449 consecutive patients were selected with the diagnosis of HF and an evaluation of LVEF in the 6 months prior to selection who were referred to two HF units. Patients with systolic dysfunction were only considered if a second echocardiogram was performed during the follow-up. RESULTS: At the time of diagnosis, 207 patients had LVEF > 40% (HFpEF) and 242 had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1 year, the LVEF was re-evaluated in all 242 patients with a LVEF ≤ 40%: in 126 (52%), the second LVEF was > 40% (HFrecEF), and the remaining 116 (48%) had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1800 ± 900 days of follow-up patients with recovered LVEF had a significantly lower mortality rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.286, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.264-4.145, p = 0.019; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 2.222, 95% CI 1.189-4.186, p < 0.001) and hospitalization rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.411, 95% CI 1.046-1.903, p = 0.024; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.388, 95% CI 1.002-1.924, p = 0.049). The following are predictors of LVEF recovery: younger age, lower functional class, treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and beta-blockers, absence of defibrillator use, and non-ischemic etiology. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF and reduced LVEF who were re-evaluated after 1 year, had significant improvement in their LVEF and had a more favourable prognosis than HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.