Importance of diagnostic setting in determining mortality in patients with new-onset heart failure: temporal trends in Denmark 1997–2017

Aim To investigate temporal trends in in-patient versus out-patient diagnosis of new-onset heart failure (HF) and the subsequent risk of death and hospitalization. Methods and results Using nationwide registers, 192,581 patients with a first diagnosis of HF (1997–2017) were included. We computed incidences of HF, age-standardized mortality rates, and absolute risks (AR) of death and hospitalization (accounting for competing risk of death) to understand the importance of the diagnosis setting in relation to subsequent mortality and hospitalization. The overall incidence of HF was approximately the same (170/100,000 persons) every year during 1997–2017. However, in 1997, 77% of all first diagnoses of HF were made during a hospitalization, whereas the proportion was 39% in 2017. As in-patient diagnoses decreased, out-patient diagnoses increased from 23% to 61%. Out-patients had lower mortality and hospitalization rates than in-patients throughout the study period, although the 1-year age-standardized mortality rate decreased for each of in-patients (24 to 14/100-person) and out-patients (11 to 7/100-person). 1-year and 5-year AR of death decreased by 11.1% and 17.0%, respectively, for all HF patients, while the risk of hospitalization for HF did not decrease significantly (1.13% and 0.96%, respectively). Conclusions Between 1997 and 2017, HF changed from being primarily diagnosed during hospitalization to being mostly diagnosed in the outpatient setting. Out-patients had much lower mortality rates than in-patients throughout the study period. Despite a significant decrease in mortality risk for all HF patients, neither in-patients nor out-patients experienced a reduction in the risk of a HF hospitalization.

The utility of implantable loop recorders (ILR) in patient management: an age and indication stratified study in the outpatient-implant era

Introduction Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are now routinely implanted for long-term cardiac monitoring in the clinic setting. This study examined the real-world performance of these devices, focusing on the management decision changes made in response to ILR-recorded data. Methods and Results This was a single centre, prospective observational study of consecutive patients undergoing ILR implantation. All patients who underwent implantation of a Medtronic Reveal LINQ device from September 2017 to June 2019 at Barts Heart Centre were included. 501 patients were included. 302 (60%) patients underwent ILR implantation for an indication of pre-syncope/syncope, 96 (19%) for palpitations, 72 (14%) for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection with a history of cryptogenic stroke and 31 (6%) for patients deemed to be high risk of serious cardiac arrhythmia. The primary outcome of this study was that an ILR-derived diagnosis altered management in 110 (22%) of patients. Secondary outcomes concerned sub-group analyses by indication: in patients who presented with syncope/presyncope, a change in management resulting from ILR data was positively associated with age (HR: 1.04 [95%CI 1.02–1.06]; p < 0.001) and negatively associated with a normal ECG at baseline (HR 0.54 [0.31–0.93]; p = 0.03). Few patients (1/57, 2%) aged < 40 years in this group underwent device implantation, compared to 19/62 patients (31%) aged 75 years and over (p = 0.0024). 22/183 (12%) of patients in the 40–74 age range had a device implanted. In patients who underwent ILR insertion following cryptogenic stroke, 13/72 patients (18%) had AF detected leading to a decision to commence anticoagulation. Conclusion These results inform the utility of ILR in the clinical setting. Diagnoses provided by ILR that lead to changes in management are rare in patients under age 40, particularly following syncope, presyncope or palpitations. In older patients new diagnoses are frequently made and trigger important changes in treatment.

Generalisability of Randomised Controlled Trials in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background Heart failure (HF) trials have stringent in- and ex- clusion criteria, but limited data exists regarding generalisability of trials. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in trials and observational registries. Methods and Results Individual patient data for 16922 patients from five randomised clinical trials and 46914 patients from two HF registries were included. The registry patients were categorised into trial-eligible and non-eligible groups using the most commonly used in- and ex-clusion criteria. A total of 26104 (56%) registry patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at one year were lowest in the trial population (7%), followed by trial-eligible patients (12%) and trial-non-eligible registry patients (26%). After adjustment for age and sex, all-cause mortality rates were similar between trial participants and trial-eligible registry patients (standardised mortality ratio (SMR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 -1.03) but cardiovascular mortality was higher in trial participants (SMR 1.19; 1.12 -1.27). After full case-mix adjustment, the SMR for cardiovascular mortality remained higher in the trials at 1.28 (1.20- 1.37) compared to RCT-eligible registry patients. Conclusion In contemporary HF registries, over half of HFrEF patients would have been eligible for trial enrolment. Crude clinical event rates were lower in the trials, but, after adjustment for case-mix, trial participants had similar rates of survival as registries. Despite this, they had about 30% higher cardiovascular mortality rates. Age and sex were the main drivers of differences in clinical outcomes between HF trials and observational HF registries.

Comparative efficacy and safety of different catheter ablation strategies for persistent atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aims Whereas pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the universally agreed target in catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), an ideal ablation set in persistent AF remains questioned. Aim of this study is to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing different ablation strategies in persistent AF patients. Methods and results Network meta-analysis was performed in a frequentist framework with the different ablation strategies constituting the competitive arms of interest. Primary efficacy endpoint was recurrences of atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF, atrial flutter, and/or organized atrial tachycardia). Secondary endpoints included major peri-procedural complications, procedure, and fluoroscopy duration. PubMED/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched through June 2020. 2548 records were screened and 57 full-text articles assessed. Eventually 24 RCTs were included, encompassing 3245 patients (median follow-up 15 months, IQR 12–18). Compared to PVI alone, PVI plus linear lesions in the left atrium and elimination of extra-PV sources was the only strategy associated with a reduced risk of arrhythmia recurrence (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.27–0.88). Most treatment arms were associated with longer procedural time compared with PVI; however, major peri-procedural complications and fluoroscopy time did not differ. Conclusion A comprehensive strategy including PVI, linear lesions in the left atrium, and elimination of extra-PV sources (constrained by a heterogeneous definition across studies) was associated with reduced risk of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias compared to PVI alone. All investigated treatment arms yielded similar safety profiles. Further research should rely on enhanced substrate-based approach definitions to solve one of the most evident knowledge gaps in interventional electrophysiology.