Abstract Background To investigate baseline characteristics and long-term prognosis of carefully characterized asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in a ‘real-world’ ...cohort of first-diagnosed non-valvular AF over a 10-year follow-up period. Methods and results We conducted an observational, non-interventional, and single-centre registry-based study of consecutive first-diagnosed AF patients. Of 1100 patients (mean age 52.7 ± 12.2 years and mean follow-up 9.9 ± 6.1 years), 146 (13.3%) had asymptomatic AF. Persistent or permanent AF, slower ventricular rate during AF (< 100/min), CHA2 DS2 –VASc score of 0, history of diabetes mellitus and male gender were independent baseline risk factors for asymptomatic AF presentation (all p < 0.01) with a good predictive ability of the multivariable model (c-statistic 0.86, p < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier 10-year estimates of survival free of progression of AF (log-rank test = 33.4, p < 0.001) and ischemic stroke (log-rank test = 6.2, p = 0.013) were significantly worse for patients with asymptomatic AF compared to those with symptomatic arrhythmia. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, intermittent asymptomatic AF was significantly associated with progression to permanent AF (Hazard Ratio 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.2; p = 0.009). Conclusions In a ‘real-world’ setting, patients with asymptomatic presentation of their first-diagnosed AF could have different risk profile and long-term outcomes compared to those with symptomatic AF. Whether more intensive monitoring and comprehensive AF management including AF ablation at early stage following the incident episode of AF and increased quality of oral anticoagulation could alter the long-term prognosis of these patients requires further investigation.
Quality of life is not a standard primary outcome in ablation trials, even though symptoms drive the indication.
To assess quality of life with catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic medication at 12 ...months in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Randomized clinical trial at 4 university hospitals in Sweden and 1 in Finland of 155 patients aged 30-70 years with more than 6 months of atrial fibrillation and treatment failure with 1 antiarrhythmic drug or β-blocker, with 4-year follow-up. Study dates were July 2008-September 2017. Major exclusions were ejection fraction <35%, left atrial diameter >60 mm, ventricular pacing dependency, and previous ablation.
Pulmonary vein isolation ablation (n = 79) or previously untested antiarrhythmic drugs (n = 76).
Primary outcome was the General Health subscale score (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) at baseline and 12 months, assessed unblinded (range, 0 worst to 100 best). There were 26 secondary outcomes, including atrial fibrillation burden (% of time) from baseline to 12 months, measured by implantable cardiac monitors. The first 3 months were excluded from rhythm analysis.
Among 155 randomized patients (mean age, 56.1 years; 22.6% women), 97% completed the trial. Of 79 patients randomized to receive ablation, 75 underwent ablation, including 2 who crossed over to medication and 14 who underwent repeated ablation procedures. Of 76 patients randomized to receive antiarrhythmic medication, 74 received it, including 8 who crossed over to ablation and 43 for whom the first drug used failed. General Health score increased from 61.8 to 73.9 points in the ablation group vs 62.7 to 65.4 points in the medication group (between-group difference, 8.9 points; 95% CI, 3.1-14.7; P = .003). Of 26 secondary end points, 5 were analyzed; 2 were null and 2 were statistically significant, including decrease in atrial fibrillation burden (from 24.9% to 5.5% in the ablation group vs 23.3% to 11.5% in the medication group; difference -6.8% 95% CI, -12.9% to -0.7%; P = .03). Of the Health Survey subscales, 5 of 7 improved significantly. Most common adverse events were urosepsis (5.1%) in the ablation group and atrial tachycardia (3.9%) in the medication group.
Among patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite use of antiarrhythmic medication, the improvement in quality of life at 12 months was greater for those treated with catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic medication. Although the study was limited by absence of blinding, catheter ablation may offer an advantage for quality of life.
clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2008-001384-11.
Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and healthcare use. Great strides have been made in stroke prevention and ...rhythm control strategies, yet reducing the incidence of AF has been slowed by the increasing incidence and prevalence of AF risk factors, including obesity, physical inactivity, sleep apnea, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and other modifiable lifestyle-related factors. Fortunately, many of these AF drivers are potentially reversible, and emerging evidence supports that addressing these modifiable risks may be effective for primary and secondary AF prevention. A structured, protocol-driven multidisciplinary approach to integrate lifestyle and risk factor management as an integral part of AF management may help in the prevention and treatment of AF. However, this aspect of AF management is currently underrecognized, underused, and understudied. The purpose of this American Heart Association scientific statement is to review the association of modifiable risk factors with AF and the effects of risk factor intervention. Implementation strategies, care pathways, and educational links for achieving impactful weight reduction, increased physical activity, and risk factor modification are included. Implications for clinical practice, gaps in knowledge, and future directions for the research community are highlighted.
There has been increasing focus on the rising burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) since the turn of the millennium. The AF epidemic is projected not only to have an impact on morbidity and mortality, ...but also to result in increasing healthcare use and cost. Intensive research over the previous decades has improved our understanding of this complex arrhythmia while unraveling more knowledge gaps and inadequacies of current therapeutic options. Specifically, the advances in catheter ablation technology and strategies have not translated into significant gains in procedural success rates over recent years. Therefore, strategies aiming at lowering the risk of AF development and progression are urgently needed to curtail the AF epidemic and improve outcomes in affected individuals. Recent research has highlighted the potential beneficial effects of lifestyle and risk factor management for AF as upstream noninvasive therapy. The evidence supporting this treatment paradigm beyond routine clinical AF management argues for change in the delivery of care to patients who have this debilitating arrhythmia. In this review, we highlight the contributory role of risk factors to AF pathogenesis from both bench and bedside studies. Next, we discuss the rationale and potential benefits of risk factor modification for sinus rhythm maintenance. Last, we propose an integrated care model to incorporate risk factor modification as the fourth pillar of AF care in conjunction with established pillars of rate control, rhythm control, and anticoagulation therapy.
The aims of this study were to assess the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and included in the large prospective SOURCE ...XT (SAPIEN XT Aortic Bioprosthesis Multi-Region Outcome Registry) study and to evaluate their outcomes according to the presence of pre-existing or new-onset AF (NOAF) (defined as AF occurring within 30 days after TAVR).
Data on the epidemiology and clinical impact of AF in patients undergoing TAVR are scant and limited to small retrospective studies.
The SOURCE XT study is a multicenter, prospective registry of consecutive patients treated with the SAPIEN XT valve at 99 sites in 17 countries. Follow-up was scheduled at discharge, 1 month, 1 year, and yearly thereafter. Patients (n = 2,706) were categorized according to the presence of pre-existing or NOAF.
The prevalence of pre-existing AF was 35.6%, whereas NOAF occurred in 7.2% of patients. Both pre-existing AF and NOAF correlated with worse clinical outcomes compared with patients in sinus rhythm, including all-cause death, cardiac death, and bleeding events. NOAF was associated with higher rates of stroke at 2 years compared with sinus rhythm. Independent predictors of NOAF were age (hazard ratio: 1.1), New York Heart Association class III or IV (hazard ratio: 1.9), nontransfemoral access route (hazard ratio: 3), and balloon post-dilation (odds ratio: 1.6). No interaction was observed between any degree of post-implantation paravalvular leak and NOAF.
In the large dataset of the SOURCE XT registry, the presence of either pre-existing or NOAF increased all-cause and cardiac mortality and bleeding events. NOAF was associated with increased stroke rates at long-term follow-up.
The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation represents a challenge in clinical practice. ...In 2016, an updated opinion of selected experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention was reported. After the 2016 North American consensus statement on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, results of pivotal clinical trials assessing the type of oral anticoagulant agent and the duration of antiplatelet treatment have been published. On the basis of these results, this focused update on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention recommends that a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant be preferred over a vitamin K antagonist as the oral anticoagulant of choice. Moreover, a double-therapy regimen (oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y
inhibitor) by the time of hospital discharge should be considered for most patients, whereas extending the use of aspirin beyond hospital discharge (ie, triple therapy) should be considered only for selected patients at high ischemic/thrombotic and low bleeding risks and for a limited period of time. The present document provides a focused updated on the rationale for the new expert consensus-derived recommendations on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
As the most common sustained arrhythmia in adults, atrial fibrillation (AF) is an established and growing epidemic. To provide optimal patient care, it is important for clinicians to be aware of AF's ...epidemiological trends, methods of risk reduction, and the various available treatment modalities. Our understanding of AF's pathophysiology has advanced, and with this new understanding has come advancements in prevention strategies as well as pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment options. Following PubMed and MEDLINE searches for AF risk factors, epidemiology, and therapies, we reviewed relevant articles (and bibliographies of those articles) published from 2000 to 2016. This "state-of-the-art" review provides a comprehensive update on the understanding of AF in the world today, contemporary therapeutic options, and directions of ongoing and future study.
The end point of current catheter-based ablation approaches for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is the elimination of all the possible triggers with the least amount of ablation necessary. ...Once all the triggers have been eliminated, the incremental value of any additional lesion sets remains to be proven. Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is the cornerstone of catheter ablation approaches for eliminating AF triggers. However, up to 11% of patients demonstrate reproducible sustained AF initiation from non-PV foci. In these patients, triggers can typically be elicited using standardized induction protocols, which include cardioversion of spontaneous and/or induced AF and infusion of high-dose isoproterenol. Non-PV triggers typically arise from discrete anatomical structures that include the mitral and tricuspid periannular regions, the crista terminalis and Eustachian ridge, the interatrial septum, the left atrial (LA) posterior wall, the left atrial appendage (LAA), and other thoracic veins such as the superior vena cava, the coronary sinus, and the ligament of Marshall. Localization of non-PV foci involves a detailed analysis of specific intra-atrial activation sequences using multipolar catheters in standard atrial locations coupled with information from the surface electrocardiogram P wave when possible. Multipolar catheters positioned along the coronary sinus and crista terminalis/superior vena cava region together with direct recordings from the right and left PVs allow a quick localization of non-PV foci. Elimination of non-PV triggers by means of focal ablation at the site of origin or isolation of arrhythmogenic structures (eg, LA posterior wall or superior vena cava) has been associated with improved arrhythmia-free survival.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and together confer an adverse prognosis. The association of AF with HF subtypes has not been well described. We sought to examine ...differences in the temporal association of AF and HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.
We studied Framingham Heart Study participants with new-onset AF or HF between 1980 and 2012. Among 1737 individuals with new AF (mean age, 75±12 years; 48% women), more than one third (37%) had HF. Conversely, among 1166 individuals with new HF (mean age, 79±11 years; 53% women), more than half (57%) had AF. Prevalent AF was more strongly associated with incident HF with preserved ejection fraction (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio HR, 2.34; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.48-3.70; no AF as referent) versus HF with reduced ejection fraction (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.83-2.10), with a trend toward difference between HF subtypes (P for difference=0.06). Prevalent HF was associated with incident AF (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.26-3.76; no HF as referent). The presence of both AF and HF portended greater mortality risk compared with neither condition, particularly among individuals with new HF with reduced ejection fraction and prevalent AF (HR, 2.72; 95% CI, 2.12-3.48) compared with new HF with preserved ejection fraction and prevalent AF (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.41-2.37; P for difference=0.02).
AF occurs in more than half of individuals with HF, and HF occurs in more than one third of individuals with AF. AF precedes and follows HF with both preserved and reduced ejection fraction, with some differences in temporal association and prognosis. Future studies focused on underlying mechanisms of these dual conditions are warranted.
PDF
