1. Home
  2. heart failure

heart failure

What Is Atrial Fibrillation?

Author/s: 
Rebecca Voelker

Atrial fibrillation is an abnormal heart rhythm that can cause stroke, heart failure, heart attack, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and death.

Atrial fibrillation is classified as paroxysmal (intermittent episodes lasting 7 days or less), persistent (lasting more than 7 days), long-standing persistent (lasting more than 1 year), or permanent.1

In the US, atrial fibrillation affects about 10.55 million people and is more common among men than women. Other risk factors include older age, smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, high alcohol consumption, sleep apnea, an overactive thyroid gland, and possibly genetic factors.

Keywords 
atrial fibrillation Cardiology Patient Information jama Patient Information Rhythm Disorders

Management of Atrial Fibrillation

Author/s: 
Francis J Alenghat, Jason T Alexander, Gaurav A Upadhyay

Atrial fibrillation has a lifetime prevalence of 15% to 40% and predisposes patients to stroke and cardiac dysfunction. This JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis focuses on recommendations for long-term management of AF, including new paradigms for rhythm control and stroke risk reduction.

Keywords 
atrial fibrillation coronary artery disease heart disease Cardiology Rhythm Disorders heart failure

Aortic valve replacement versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: long-term follow-up of the AVATAR trial

Author/s: 
Marko Banovic, Svetozar Putnik, Bruno R Da Costa, Martin Penicka, Marek A Deja, Martin Kotrc

Background and aims: The question of when and how to treat truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function is still subject to debate and ongoing research. Here, the results of extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial are reported (NCT02436655, clinical trials.gov).

Methods: The AVATAR trial randomly assigned patients with severe, asymptomatic AS and LV ejection fraction ≥50% to undergo either early surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or conservative treatment with watchful waiting strategy. All patients had negative exercise stress testing. The primary hypothesis was that early AVR will reduce a primary composite endpoint comprising all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure (HF), as compared to conservative treatment strategy.

Results: A total of 157 low-risk patients (mean age 67 years, 57% men, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 1.7%) were randomly allocated to either early AVR group (n=78) or conservative treatment group (n=79). In an intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 63 months, the primary composite endpoint outcome event occurred in 18/78 patients (23.1%) in the early surgery group and in 37/79 patients (46.8%) in the conservative treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] early surgery vs. conservative treatment 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.73, p=0.002). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for individual endpoints of all-cause death and HF hospitalization were significantly lower in the early surgery compared with the conservative group (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.85, p=0.012 for all-cause death, and HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06-0.73, p=0.007 for HF hospitalizations).

Conclusions: The extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial demonstrates better clinical outcomes with early surgical AVR in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV ejection fraction compared with patients treated with conservative management on watchful waiting.

Keywords 
aortic stenosis aortic valve surgery asymptomatic low-risk outcomes treatment

Milestones in Heart Failure: How Far We Have Come and How Far We Have Left to Go

Author/s: 
H., Kela, I., Kakarlala, C., Hassan, M., Belavadi, R., Gudigopuram, S. V. R., Raguthu, C., Modi, S., Sange, I.

Heart failure is a clinically complex syndrome that results due to the failure of the ventricles to function as pump and oxygenate end organs. The repercussions of inadequate perfusion are seen in the form of sympathetic overactivation and third spacing, leading to clinical signs of increased blood pressure, dyspnea, fatigue, palpitations, etc. This article provided a brief overview of the clinical syndrome of heart failure; its epidemiology, risk factors, symptoms, and staging; and the mechanisms involved in disease progression. This article also described several landmark trials in heart failure that tested the efficacy of first-line drugs such as beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and the latest drugs in the field of heart failure: angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors. Most studies described in this article were guideline-setting trials that revolutionized the practice of medicine and cardiology.

Keywords 
heart failure Cardiology Ventricles blood pressure

Malnutrition in hospitalized adults: A systematic review

Author/s: 
Uhl, S., Siddique, S. M., McKeever, L., Bloschichak, A., D'Anci, K., Leas, B., Mull, N. K, Tsou, A. Y.

Objectives. To review the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients, evaluate effectiveness of measurement tools for malnutrition on clinical outcomes, and assess effectiveness of hospital-initiated interventions for patients diagnosed with malnutrition.

Data sources. We searched electronic databases (Embase®, MEDLINE®, PubMed®, and the Cochrane Library) from January 1, 2000, to June 3, 2021. We hand-searched reference lists of relevant studies and searched for unpublished studies in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected (1) existing systematic reviews (SRs) to assess the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes, (2) randomized and non-randomized studies to evaluate the effectiveness of malnutrition tools on clinical outcomes, and (3) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess effectiveness of hospital-initiated treatments for malnutrition. Clinical outcomes of interest included mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, quality of life, functional status, activities of daily living, hospital acquired conditions, wound healing, and discharge disposition. When appropriate, we conducted meta-analysis to quantitatively summarize study findings; otherwise, data were narratively synthesized. When available, we used pooled estimates from existing SRs to determine the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes, and assessed the strength of evidence.

Results. Six existing SRs (including 43 unique studies) provided evidence on the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes. Low to moderate strength of evidence (SOE) showed an association between malnutrition and increased hospital mortality and prolonged hospital length of stay. This association was observed across patients hospitalized for an acute medical event requiring intensive care unit care, heart failure, and cirrhosis. Literature searches found no studies that met inclusion criteria and assessed effectiveness of measurement tools. The primary reason studies did not meet inclusion criteria is because they lacked an appropriate control group. Moderate SOE from 11 RCTs found that hospital-initiated malnutrition interventions likely reduce mortality compared with usual care among hospitalized patients diagnosed with malnutrition. Low SOE indicated that hospital-initiated malnutrition interventions may also improve quality of life compared to usual care.

Conclusions. Evidence shows an association between malnutrition and increased mortality and prolonged length of hospital stay among hospitalized patients identified as malnourished. However, the strength of this association varied depending on patient population and tool used to identify malnutrition. Evidence indicates malnutrition-focused hospital-initiated interventions likely reduce mortality and may improve quality of life compared to usual care among patients diagnosed with malnutrition. Research is needed to assess the clinical utility of measurement tools for malnutrition.

Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

Author/s: 
Lewis, C. E., Fine, L. J., Beddhu, S., Cheung, A. K., Cushman, W. C., Cutler, J. A., Evans, G. W., Johnson, K. C., Kitzman, D. W., Oparil, S., Rahman, M., Reboussin, D. M., Rocco, M. V., Sink, K, M., Snyder, J. K., Whelton, P. K., Williamson, J. D., Wright Jr., J. T., Ambrosius, W. T.

Background: In a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected.

Methods: We randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016.

Results: At a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups.

Conclusions: Among patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Keywords 
blood-pressure trial cardiovascular hypotension stroke

Estimating Lifetime Benefits of Comprehensive Disease-Modifying Pharmacological Therapies in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Comparative Analysis of Three Randomised Controlled Trials

Author/s: 
Vaduganathan, M., Claggett, BL, Jhund, PS, Cunningham, JW, Ferreira, JP, Zannad, F, Packer, M, Fonarow, GC, McMurray, JJV, Solomon, S.D.

Background: Three drug classes (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors [ARNIs], and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy consisting of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers. Each class was previously studied with different background therapies and the expected treatment benefits with their combined use are not known. Here, we used data from three previously reported randomised controlled trials to estimate lifetime gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive therapy versus conventional therapy in patients with chronic HFrEF.

Methods: In this cross-trial analysis, we estimated treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy (ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor) versus conventional therapy (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker) in patients with chronic HFrEF by making indirect comparisons of three pivotal trials, EMPHASIS-HF (n=2737), PARADIGM-HF (n=8399), and DAPA-HF (n=4744). Our primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure; we also assessed these endpoints individually and assessed all-cause mortality. Assuming these relative treatment effects are consistent over time, we then projected incremental long-term gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive disease-modifying therapy in the control group of the EMPHASIS-HF trial (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker).

Findings: The hazard ratio (HR) for the imputed aggregate treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying therapy versus conventional therapy on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure was 0·38 (95% CI 0·30-0·47). HRs were also favourable for cardiovascular death alone (HR 0·50 [95% CI 0·37-0·67]), hospital admission for heart failure alone (0·32 [0·24-0·43]), and all-cause mortality (0·53 [0·40-0·70]). Treatment with comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy was estimated to afford 2·7 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 8·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) free from cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure and 1·4 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 6·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) of survival compared with conventional therapy.

Interpretation: Among patients with HFrEF, the anticipated aggregate treatment effects of early comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy are substantial and support the combination use of an ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor as a new therapeutic standard.

Funding: None.

Keywords 
CHF patients heart failure pharmacologic management

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease

Author/s: 
Maron, DJ, Hochman, JS, Reynolds, HR, Bangalore, S, O'Brien, SM, Boden, WE, Chaitman, BR, Senior, R, Lopez-Sendon, J, Alexander, KP, Lopes, RD, Shaw, LJ, Berger, JS, Newman, JD, Sidhu, MS, Goodman, SG, Ruzyllo, W, Gosselin, G, Maggioni, AP, White, HD, Bhargava, B, Min, JK, Mancini, GBJ, Berman, DS, Picard, MH, Kwong, RY, Ali, ZA, Mark, DB, Spertus, JA, Krishnan, MN, Elghamaz, A, Moorthy, N, Hueb, WA, Demkow, M, Mavromatis, K, Bockeria, O, Peteiro, J, Miller, TD, Szwed, H, Doerr, R, Keltai, M, Selvanayagam, JB, Steg, PG, Held, C, Kohsaka, S, Mavromichalis, S, Kirby, R, Jeffries, NO, Harrell, FE Jr, Rockhold, FW, Broderick, S, Ferguson, TB Jr, Williams, DO, Harrington, RA, Stone, GW, Rosenberg, Y, ISCHEMIA Research Group

Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.

Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.

Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).

Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Keywords 
coronary artery disease cardiac ischemia cardiac interventions
Subscribe to heart failure