scholarly journals Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid-range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 685-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josephine Lauritsen ◽  
Finn Gustafsson ◽  
Jawdat Abdulla
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Long Term Prognosis

scholarly journals Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Androulakis ◽  
Catrin Sohrabi ◽  
Alexandros Briasoulis ◽  
Constantinos Bakogiannis ◽  
Bunny Saberwal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Control Strategy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

Background: Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has been proposed as a means of improving outcomes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are otherwise receiving appropriate treatment. Unlike HFrEF, treatment options are more limited in patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and the data pertaining to the management of AF in these patients are controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of CA on outcomes of patients with AF and HFpEF, such as functional status, post-procedural complications, hospitalization, morbidity and mortality, based on data from observational studies. Methods: We systematically searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for Central Register of Clinical Trials until May 2020. Results: Overall, the pooling of our data showed that sinus rhythm was achieved long-term in 58.0% (95% CI 0.44–0.71). Long-term AF recurrence was noticed in 22.3% of patients. Admission for HF occurred in 6.2% (95% CI 0.04–0.09) whilst all-cause mortality was identified in 6.3% (95% CI 0.02–0.13). Conclusion: This meta-analysis is the first to focus on determining the benefits of a rhythm control strategy for patients with AF and HFpEF using CA, suggesting it may be worthwhile to investigate the effects of a CA rhythm control strategy as the default treatment of AF in HFpEF patients in randomized trials.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
O.M Aldaas ◽  
F Lupercio ◽  
C.L Malladi ◽  
P.S Mylavarapu ◽  
D Darden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
One Year

Abstract Background Catheter ablation improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the role of catheter ablation in HF patients with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear. Purpose To determine the efficacy of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF relative to those with HFrEF. Methods We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF recurrence at one year after catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF versus those with HFrEF. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous variables, where a RR<1.0 favors the HFpEF group. Results Four studies with a total of 563 patients were included, of which 312 had HFpEF and 251 had HFrEF. All patients included were undergoing first time catheter ablation of AF. Patients with HFpEF experienced similar recurrence of AF one year after ablation on or off antiarrhythmic drugs compared to those with HFrEF (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69–1.10, p=0.24), as shown in Figure 1. Recurrence of AF was assessed with electrocardiography, Holter monitoring, and/or event monitoring at scheduled follow-up visits and final follow-up. Conclusion Based on the results of this meta-analysis, catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF appears as efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm as in those with HFrEF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals What Type of Patients Did PARAGON-HF Select? Insights from a Real-World Prospective Cohort of Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3669 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Rettl ◽  
Theresa-Marie Dachs ◽  
Franz Duca ◽  
Christina Binder ◽  
Fabian Dusik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
Long Term Prognosis

The PARAGON-HF clinical trial suggested that sacubitril/valsartan may become a treatment option for particular subgroups of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the proportion of real-world HFpEF patients who are theoretically superimposable with the PARAGON-HF population is yet unknown. The present study was performed to define the proportion of real-world PARAGON-HF-like patients and to describe their clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis in comparison with those who would not meet PARAGON-HF criteria. We systematically applied PARAGON-HF inclusion and exclusion criteria to a total of 427 HFpEF patients who have been participating in a prospective national registry between December 2010 and December 2019. In total, only 170 (39.8%) registry patients were theoretically eligible for PARAGON-HF. Patients not meeting inclusion criteria (41.0%) were less impaired with respect to exercise capacity (median 6-min walk distance: 385 m (IQR: 300–450) versus 323 m (IQR: 240–383); p < 0.001) had lower pulmonary pressures (mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP): 31.2 mmHg, standard deviation (SD): ±10.2 versus 32.8 mmHg, SD: ±9.7; p < 0.001) and better outcomes (log-rank: p < 0.001) as compared to the PARAGON-like cohort. However, patients theoretically excluded from the trial (19.2%) were those with most advanced heart failure symptoms (median 6-min walk test: 252 m (IQR: 165–387); p < 0.001), highest pulmonary pressures (mPAP: 38.2 mmHg, SD: ±12.4; p < 0.001) and worst outcome (log-rank: p = 0.037). We demonstrate here that < 40% of real-world HFpEF patients meet eligibility criteria for PARAGON-HF. We conclude that despite reasons for optimism after PARAGON-HF, a large proportion of HFpEF patients will remain without meaningful treatment options.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document