Improvement In Ejection Fraction Research Articles

Prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation in myocardial infarction with and without improved ejection fraction.

Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (impEF) often presents in contemporary acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) during AMI is an important predictor of subsequential heart failure (HF), while its impact on the trajectory of post-MI left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and prognostic implication in patients with and without impEF remains undetermined. We aimed to investigate the prognostic impacts of NOAF in AMI patients with and without impEF. Consecutive AMI patients without a prior history of AF between February 2014 and March 2018 with baseline LVEF≤40% and had ≥1 LVEF measurement after baseline were included. ImpEF was defined as a baseline LVEF≤40% and a re-evaluation showed both LVEF>40% and an absolute increase of LVEF≥10%. Persistently reduced EF (prEF) was defined as the second measurement of LVEF either ≤40% or an absolute increase of LVEF<10%. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) that was composed of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. Cox regression analysis and competing risk analysis were performed to assess the association of post-MI NOAF with MACE. Among 293 patients (mean age: 66.6±11.3years, 79.2% of males), 145 (49.5%) had impEF and 67 (22.9%) developed NOAF. Higher heart rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.97; P=0.015), prior MI (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.09-0.69; P=0.008), and STEMI (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77; P=0.006) were independent predictors of post-MI impEF. Within up to 5years of follow-up, there were 22 (15.2%) and 53 (35.8%) MACE in patients with impEF and prEF, respectively. NOAF was an independent predictor of MACE in patients with impEF (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.34, 95% CI: 2.49-21.59; P<0.001) but not in those with prEF (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.39-1.55; P=0.483) after multivariable adjustment. Similar results were obtained when accounting for the competing risk of all-cause death (subdistribution HR and 95% CIs in impEF and prEF were 6.47 [2.32-18.09] and 0.79 [0.39-1.61], respectively). The NOAF was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes in AMI patients with impEF.

Predictors of ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with a wearable cardioverter defibrillator: an international multicenter registry.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) can protect patients from sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias and serve as a bridge to decision of definite defibrillator implantation. The aim of this analysis from an international, multicenter WCD registry was to identify predictors of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in this population. One thousand six hundred seventy-five patients with WCD were included in a multicenter registry from 9 European centers, with a median follow-up of 440days (IQR 120-893). The primary study end point was the occurrence of sustained VT/VF. Sustained VT was detected by WCD in 5.4% and VF in 0.9% of all patients. Of the 30.3% of patients receiving ICD implantation during follow-up, sustained VT was recorded in 9.3% and VF in 2.6%. Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 0.5, p < 0.001), and medication with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR 0.7, p = 0.027) and aldosterone antagonists (HR 0.7, p = 0.005) were associated with a significantly lower risk of VT/VF. Patients who received WCD due to a transient increased risk of sudden cardiac death have a comparatively lower risk of VT/VF in the presence of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Of note, optimal medical treatment for heart failure not only results in an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction but also in a reduction in the risk for VT/VF.

Predictors of ventricular tachyarrhythmia in patients with a wearable cardioverter defibrillator: an international multicenter registry.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) can protect patients from sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias and serve as a bridge to decision of definite defibrillator implantation. The aim of this analysis from an international, multicenter WCD registry was to identify predictors of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in this population. One thousand six hundred seventy-five patients with WCD were included in a multicenter registry from 9 European centers, with a median follow-up of 440days (IQR 120-893). The primary study end point was the occurrence of sustained VT/VF. Sustained VT was detected by WCD in 5.4% and VF in 0.9% of all patients. Of the 30.3% of patients receiving ICD implantation during follow-up, sustained VT was recorded in 9.3% and VF in 2.6%. Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR 0.5, p < 0.001), and medication with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR 0.7, p = 0.027) and aldosterone antagonists (HR 0.7, p = 0.005) were associated with a significantly lower risk of VT/VF. Patients who received WCD due to a transient increased risk of sudden cardiac death have a comparatively lower risk of VT/VF in the presence of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Of note, optimal medical treatment for heart failure not only results in an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction but also in a reduction in the risk for VT/VF.

Echocardiographic Predictors of Improvement of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction below 35% in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Echocardiographic Predictors of Improvement of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction below 35% in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Echocardiographic Predictors of Improvement of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction below 35% in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Introduction: An ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a clinical syndrome defined by symptoms of myocardial ischemia, persistent electrocardiographic ST-segment elevation and subsequent release of biomarkers suggestive of myocardial necrosis. In clinical practice, echocardiography has become essential in evaluating patients after acute myocardial infarction. We aimed to assess clinical and echocardiographic parameters that may affect LV function recovery in patients after STEMI. Methods: This study is a retrospective observational study from a tertiary referral center in Israel. We collected patients that were admitted with STEMI and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 35% on preliminary echocardiography at the index hospitalization and compared the findings to a follow-up study performed within 1–6 months after that event, in order to see if there are predictors of LVEF change &gt; 10% within 90 days following STEMI. Results: This study included 101 patients that were admitted between 2016 and 2021. Within a median follow-up of 9.7 weeks (IQR 5.9–17.1), 27 (25.2%) patients had improved their LVEF, and 74 (69.2%) had no change or further reduced LVEF. Compared to patients without LVEF improvement, those with improved LVEF were more likely to be female (29.6% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.01), less likely to suffer from hypertension (33.3% vs. 56.8%, p = 0.04) and had marginally higher rates of thrombolysis treatment (14.1% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.06). Conclusions: in the population of STEMI patients with residual LVEF &lt; 35%, approximately a quarter will improve at least 10% in their follow-up LVEF, and there were no clear echocardiographic predictors for this improvement.

Sonothrombolysis before and after percutaneous coronary intervention provides the largest myocardial salvage in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundSonothrombolysis is a therapeutic application of ultrasound with ultrasound contrast for patients with ST elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Recent trials demonstrated that sonothrombolysis, delivered before and after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), increase infarct vessel patency, improve microvascular flow, reduce infarct size, and improve ejection fraction. However, it is unclear whether pre-pPCI sonothrombolysis is essential for therapeutic benefit. We designed a parallel three-arm sham-controlled randomised controlled trial to address this. MethodsPatients presenting with first STEMI undergoing pPCI within six hours of symptom onset were randomised 1:1:1 into three arms: sonothrombolysis pre/post pPCI (Group 1), Sham pre & sonothrombolysis post pPCI (Group 2), and Sham pre/post pPCI (Group 3). Our primary endpoint was infarct size (% LV mass) assessed by Cardiac MRI at day 4±2. Secondary endpoints included myocardial salvage index (MSI) and echocardiographic parameters at Day 4±2 and six months. ResultsOur trial was ceased early due to the COVID pandemic. From 122 patients screened between September 2020 and June 2021, 51 patients (Age 60, male 82%) were included post randomisation. Median sonothrombolysis took 5 minutes pre pPCI and 15 minutes post, without significant door-to-balloon delay. There was a trend towards reduction in median infarct size between Group 1 (8%[IQR 4,11]), Group 2 (11%[7,19]) or Group 3 (15%[9,22]). Similarly there was a trend towards improved MSI in Group 1 (79%[64,85]) compared to Groups 2 (51%[45,70]) and 3 (48%[37,73]) No major adverse cardiac events occurred during hospitalization. ConclusionPre-pPCI sonothrombolysis may be key to improving MSI in STEMI. Multicentre trials and health economic analyses are required before clinical translation.

Sonothrombolysis before and after percutaneous coronary intervention provides the largest myocardial salvage in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundSonothrombolysis is a therapeutic application of ultrasound with ultrasound contrast for patients with ST elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Recent trials demonstrated that sonothrombolysis, delivered before and after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), increase infarct vessel patency, improve microvascular flow, reduce infarct size, and improve ejection fraction. However, it is unclear whether pre-pPCI sonothrombolysis is essential for therapeutic benefit. We designed a parallel three-arm sham-controlled randomised controlled trial to address this. MethodsPatients presenting with first STEMI undergoing pPCI within six hours of symptom onset were randomised 1:1:1 into three arms: sonothrombolysis pre/post pPCI (Group 1), Sham pre & sonothrombolysis post pPCI (Group 2), and Sham pre/post pPCI (Group 3). Our primary endpoint was infarct size (% LV mass) assessed by Cardiac MRI at day 4±2. Secondary endpoints included myocardial salvage index (MSI) and echocardiographic parameters at Day 4±2 and six months. ResultsOur trial was ceased early due to the COVID pandemic. From 122 patients screened between September 2020 and June 2021, 51 patients (Age 60, male 82%) were included post randomisation. Median sonothrombolysis took 5 minutes pre pPCI and 15 minutes post, without significant door-to-balloon delay. There was a trend towards reduction in median infarct size between Group 1 (8%[IQR 4,11]), Group 2 (11%[7,19]) or Group 3 (15%[9,22]). Similarly there was a trend towards improved MSI in Group 1 (79%[64,85]) compared to Groups 2 (51%[45,70]) and 3 (48%[37,73]) No major adverse cardiac events occurred during hospitalization. ConclusionPre-pPCI sonothrombolysis may be key to improving MSI in STEMI. Multicentre trials and health economic analyses are required before clinical translation.

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch area pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: A prospective and comparative study

BackgroundPacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. AimTo compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice. MethodsWe prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause. ResultsA total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14−0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%). ConclusionIn this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.

Prognostic Impact of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Improvement after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an efficient and safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). While severe aortic stenosis as well as severe aortic regurgitation (AR) are known to negatively impact left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), prior studies have shown that TAVR can lead to an improvement in LVEF. Thus far, little is known about the prognostic implication of LVEF improvement as a sole predictor of outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of LVEF impairment before TAVR, as well as early LVEF improvement in patients undergoing TAVR. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing TAVR in a large tertiary university hospital were consecutively included in a prospective registry. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed at baseline, after 1 month and annually thereafter. Significant LVEF improvement was defined as a relative increase of ≥10% in LVEF at 30 days compared to baseline LVEF. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding and unplanned re-interventions of the aortic valve at 5 years. Results: Among 1655 patients who underwent TAVR between September 2011 and April 2024, the LVEF at baseline was available for 1556 patients. Of these, 1031 patients (66.2%) had preserved LVEF at baseline (LVEF ≥ 53%), whereas 303 patients (19.5%) had moderately reduced LVEF (40-52%) and 222 patients (14.3%) had severely reduced LVEF (<40%). Out of the patients with impaired LVEF, 155 (40.4%) patients showed a significant improvement in LVEF ≥10% after 30 days, while 229 (60.6%) patients showed no significant LVEF improvement (<10%). Patients with preserved LVEF at baseline had significantly better mortality outcomes than those with severely reduced LVEF (p < 0.001). LVEF improvement was associated with a survival benefit after 1 year (p = 0.009, HR 2.68, 0.95 CI 1.23-5.85) which diminished after 5 years (p = 0.058), but patients with LVEF improvement showed lower MACE rates at 5 years (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Preserved LVEF before TAVR is an independent predictor for improved outcomes. Additionally, early improvement in LVEF is associated with beneficial outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR.

Tighter is better: Can a simple and cost-free parameter predict response to cardiac synchronization therapy?

Several studies have evaluated the role of QRS duration (QRSd) or QRS narrowing as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) to reduce nonresponders. Our study aimed to determine the correlation between the relative change in QRS index (QI) compared to clinical outcome and prognosis in patients who underwent CRT implantation. A three-centers study involving 398 patients with a CRT device was conducted. Clinical, echocardiographic and pharmacological variables, QRSd before and after CRT implantation and QI were measured. In a 6-month follow-up, a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic and systolic volumes (LVEDV and LVESV) were observed. QI was related to reverse remodeling (multiple r-squared: 0.48, adjusted r-squared: 0.43, p=.001), and the cut-off value that best predicted LV reverse remodeling after 6 months of CRT was 12.25% (AUC 0.7, p=.001). At 24 months, a statistically significant difference was found between patients with a QI≤12.25% and those with a QI>12.25% regarding NYHA class worsening (p=.04). The mean of the QI of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was lower than patients who died of other causes (p=.0179). A correlation between pre-CRT QRSd/LVEDV and QI was observed (r=+ 0.20; p=.0003). A higher QRSd/LVEDV ratio was associated with an improved LVEF, LVEDV, and LVESV (p<.0001) at follow-up. QI narrowing after CRT was related to greater echocardiographic reverse remodeling and a lower rate of adverse events (death or cardiovascular hospitalizations). The QI can improve the prediction of adverse events in a population with CRT regardless of comorbidities according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index. QI could be used to predict CRT response.

Heart Failure With Improved Ejection Fraction: Prevalence, Predictors, and Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy.

Recently, a new category of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) has emerged in the classification system. This is defined as the subgroup of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) whose left ventricular ejection fraction has recovered partially or completely, with no specific cut-off values established yet in the guidelines. In our review, we aim to provide an overview of prevalence, predictors, mechanism of remodeling, and management strategies regarding HFimpEF. These patients constitute a sizeable cohort among patients with reduced ejection fraction. Certain patient characteristics including younger age and female gender, absence of comorbid conditions, low levels of biomarkers, and non-ischemic etiology were identified as positive predictors. The heart undergoes significant maladaptive changes post failure leading to adverse remodeling influenced etiology and duration. Goal-directed medical therapy including beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have notably improved cardiac function by inducing reverse remodeling. Despite a more favorable prognosis compared to HFrEF, patients with improved ejection fraction (EF) still face clinical events and reduced quality of life, and remain at risk of adverse outcomes. Although the evidence is scarce, it is advisable to continue treatment modalities despite improvement in EF, including device therapies, to prevent relapse and clinical deterioration. It is imperative to conduct further research to understand the mechanism leading to EF amelioration and establish guidelines to identify and direct management strategies.

Predictors of improvement in LV ejection fraction post PVC ablation

Abstract Introduction Premature ventricular contraction (PVC) is a frequently encountered finding in routine ECGs, that in certain individuals may be followed by reduction in ejection fraction (EF). This may be improved or even reversed with a medical or interventional reduction of ectopic burden. Objective The primary objective of this study is to assess the potential effectiveness of cardiac ablation in suppressing PVC and subsequently enhancing the EF. Further we aim to establish predictive factors of the success of the intervention. Methods In a retrospective data analysis at a single medical centre, we examined records of 116 patients who underwent ectopic ablation, with 10 patients having more than 1 ablation. Demographic information, heart-related conditions along with the presence of a scar on MRI, was collected. The study also recorded pre- and post-procedure PVC burden and EF measurements. Results Demographics and procedural details are in table 1. It was found that patients participating in this study were predominantly male (66.4%), on average 60.1 (± 13.6) years old, overweight (BMI 29.8 ± 5.4) with no additional heart disease (56%) and no scarring on MRI (55%).The PVC burden before ablation (27.9 ± 12.7) significantly reduced to 8.0 ± 11.2 post-ablation (p &amp;lt; 0.005), marking an average relative reduction of 68.1% (± 44.1%). Successful interventions, defined by a reduction exceeding 50%, were observed in 79% of patients. The EF increased from 39.6 ± 8.9 to 47.5 ± 10.7 post-ablation (p &amp;lt; 0.005), corresponding to an average increase by 8.4 ± 8.5. Notably amongst the patients who had a successful ablation, 36% of patients achieved normalized EF (&amp;gt;55%) and 42% showed an improvement of at least 5%. A strong correlation emerged between the relative change in PVC and the ejection fraction measured after ablation, with an increase by 0.10 for every percent reduction (p &amp;lt; 0.00). The relative increase in the EF% was significantly higher in patients where the PVC burden was reduced by at least 50% (figure 1). Linear fixed effect modelling explored the influence of patient characteristics on the model. Patients with higher BMI had a lower EF after ablation with same relative reduction in PVC (p &amp;lt; 0.03). Similarly, a scar on MRI and associated heart condition was associated with reduced improvement in ejection fraction (p &amp;lt; 0.02). Also, for every increase in age patients had a reduction of 0.2 EF after ablation (p &amp;lt; 0.01). Right heart PVC’s were ablated more successfully, and had higher EF post ablation (p &amp;lt; 0.01). Conclusion In conclusion, reduction in PVC burden increases the EF after treatment. Increasing BMI, age and presence of associated heart disease can negatively impacted LVEF post ablation. Further research could improve the model that predicts improvement in LV function post successful PVC ablation.Figure 1Table 1

Twelve-lead electrocardiography-based artificial intelligence predicts the upcoming future of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Abstract Background Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has emerged as the predominant subtype of heart failure (HF), but there is a paucity of data for identifying it using artificial intelligence (AI) based electrocardiogram (ECG). Purpose This study aimed to develop artificial intelligence (AI)-ECG to identify and predict the prognosis of patients with HFmrEF. Methods We collected 104,336 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) datasets from April 2009 to December 2021 in a tertiary center. The AI-ECG encompasses a novel model that combines an automatic labelling preprocessing method with a transformer architecture incorporating a triplet loss for HFmrEF analysis. Results The receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed that the area under the curve of AI-ECG for identifying all types of HF were acceptable (0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-0.89), but that for identifying those with HFmrEF was relatively lower (0.83, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86) than those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (0.89, 95% CI: 0.85-0.82) and those with normal ejection fraction (EF) (0.87, 95% CI: 0.85-0.89). The analysis of ECG features showed significant increases in QRS duration (p=0.001), QT interval (p=0.045), and corrected QT interval (p=0.041) with increasing ‘Severity by Euclidean distance’. Following the predictability analysis with another group of 1,134 patients for improvements of follow-up EF in HFmrEF, the patients were grouped into three clusters based on the AI- Euclidean distance; Cluster 1 had the most severe cases and poorer outcomes than Clusters 2 (p&amp;lt;0.001) and 3 (p&amp;lt;0.001). Conclusion AI-ECG presents an innovative approach for the prognostic stratification of cardiac contractility in patients with HFmrEF. By using AI-ECG, patients with HFmrEF will be able to predict upcoming disease progression.

Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary CRT implantation versus CRT upgrade: single center experience

Abstract Background As heart failure (HF) management evolves, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as a cornerstone intervention, improving left ventricular (LV) function and reducing morbidity and mortality. The Budapest trial specifically addressed upgrading from permanent pacemaker (PPM) to CRT, emphasizing the potential for improved clinical outcomes and quality of life in this population. The findings highlighted the impact of CRT upgrade and contribute valuable insights to the cardiac device strategies for HF patients. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing primary CRT implantation and those undergoing CRT upgrade. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of heart failure patients who received CRT devices between 2015 and 2019. Patients were categorized into two groups: those undergoing primary CRT implantation and those undergoing CRT upgrade. Clinical outcomes, including mortality rate, hospitalization for HF exacerbation, and improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), were assessed and compared between the two groups. Results A total of 847 patients were included in the study, with 74,5% (n=631) undergoing primary CRT implantation and 13,5% (n=114) receiving CRT upgrades. The mean age was 72±10 years-old and 57% (n=485) were women, and a mean follow-up time of 23±8 months. 33.7% (n=285) of the total were of ischemic etiology. The primary CRT implantation group demonstrated a mortality of 34% (n=215) and 13% (n=84) of hospitalization due to HF; NYHA functional class improvement in 58% (n=369), and 35,7% (n=225) were CRT responders with a mean LV ejection fraction (EF) improvement of ±10%, while the CRT upgrade group had a 31% (n=36) mortality and 19% (n=22) of hospitalization due to HF; NYHA functional class improvement in 60% (n=68), and 27% (n=31) were CRT responders with a mean LV EF improvement of 8,7%. There were no statistically significant differences regarding each endpoint, namely mortality, HF hospitalizations, NYHA functional class improvement, CRT responders and mean LVEF improvement. Conclusion A clear benefit from implantation of a primary CRT device implantation has already been demonstrated. However, recent trials revealed there was also benefit in upgrading from PPM to CRT patients with decrease LVEF, comparing with PPM. This study showed that the benefits from primary CRT were similar to the benefits from upgrading CRT, in terms of mortality reduction, HF hospitalizations, NYHA functional class improvement, CRT responders and mean LVEF improvement. Once again, just like in the most recent trials, this study demonstrates the clear benefit of upgrading from a PPM to CRT in patients with decreased LVEF.

When to implant an ICD in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction? Insights from the HF-OPT trial

Abstract Background In patients with de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is expected to occur when started on guideline-recommended medical therapy (GRMT). However, the period of time, when LVEF improvement is completed, is unknown. Purpose Evaluation of improvement of LVEF &amp;gt;35% within the first year after de novo diagnosis of HFrEF with severely reduced LVEF &amp;lt;35%. Methods In the prospective HF-OPT-trial, patients with de novo HFrEF and LVEF ≤35% prescribed the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) were enrolled and followed up to one year. GRMT was initiated and uptitrated according current guidelines. LVEF improvement &amp;gt;35% under GRMT was echocardiographically assessed at day 0, day 90, day 180 and day 360. Results A total of 487 patients (59 years (IQR: 51-68), 27% women) were followed until day 180. Out of 487 patients 392 patients were followed additionally to day 360. Dosages of GRMT were significantly increased during follow-up (p&amp;lt;0.001) At 90 days, 46% (CI: 41%-50%) of the patients had LVEF improvement &amp;gt;35%. About half of those with persistently LVEF&amp;lt;35% at day 90 (46%, CI: 40%-52%) had LVEF improvement &amp;gt;35% by day 180, increasing the total rate of improvement &amp;gt;35% to 68% (CI: 63% - 72%). Until day 360 the rate of LVEF improvement &amp;gt;35% increased to 78%. Conclusions 78% of patients with de novo HFrEF showed improvement in LVEF &amp;gt;35% during the first year after diagnosis following GRMT. This finding impacts decision making for primary preventive ICD implantation.Development of LVEF.

Single center experience of efficacy and safety of atrioventricular node ablation after left bundle branch area pacing for the management of atrial fibrillation

Abstract Introduction Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with permanent pacing is an effective treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Permanent right ventricular pacing is associated with cardiac dyssynchrony, which can worsen heart failure (HF) symptoms. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recent pacing technique, more physiologic and less associated with cardiac dyssynchrony. Purpose To evaluate feasibility, safety and outcomes at 6 months of AVNA associated with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF. Methods In this retrospective monocentric study, we included all consecutive patients treated with AVNA procedure and LBBAP. Procedures characteristics, clinical follow-up, electrical and echographic data at baseline and 6 months were studied and compared to the data of a matched cohort (1:1) of patients who received an AVNA procedure with conventional pacing between March 2010 and February 2023. Results 75 AVNA procedures and LBBAP were studied. The success rate of AVNA was 98.7% at first ablation without any complications, especially no lead dislodgement or threshold rise. Pacing electrical parameters at implant were good, and stable at 6 months follow-up, with no threshold rise. At 6 months, 4 (5%) patients were hospitalized for heart failure and 1 (1.3%) was deceased. Patients had a significative improvement in NYHA class, palpitations symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). After matching with a cohort of patients with AVNA and conventional pacing (n=68), patients with LBBAP had a significantly better improvement of LVEF (+5.27±9.62% versus -0.48±14%; p = 0.01), and a lower rate of a composite endpoint (all cause death and hospitalization for HF) (HR 0.34, 95%CI: 0.1-1.06; p = 0.064). Conclusions AVNA with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF was feasible and safe. Complication rate and adverse outcomes at 6 months were similar to AVNA with conventional pacing, and LVEF improvement was significantly greater.Matched populationsOutcomes at 6 months

Biomarkers to predict improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction after atrial fibrillation ablation

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist. Catheter ablation (CA) of AF is increasingly used in patients with AF and HF. However, prediction of improvement of HF after CA is challenging. Aim We aimed to evaluate the value of biomarkers, alone and in conjunction with a clinical tool (Antwerp score) to predict left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after CA in patients with AF and HF. Methods Patients undergoing CA for AF with depressed LVEF (&amp;lt;50%) were included. Plasma levels of 13 biomarkers were measured immediately prior to CA. Patients were categorized into "responders" (LVEF normalisation after CA in case of HFmrEF and at least 10% LVEF improvement and LVEF &amp;gt; 40% at follow-up in case of HFrEF) and "non-responders" (no LVEF recovery after CA). Models were constructed by comparing the plasma levels of the various biomarkers in responders and non-responders and by adjusting for age, sex, and Antwerp score and subsequent biomarkers were then combined according based on likelihood-ratios. The predictive power of the biomarkers alone and combined in outcome prediction, as well as improvement of the Antwerp score was then evaluated. Results Out of 1665 patients undergoing CA of AF, we included 208 patients with depressed LVEF (median age 63 years, 19% female, median LAVI 42 ml/m2, median LVEF 43%). The median follow-up time was 30 months [IQR 20-34] and the median time to LVEF recovery was 8 months [IQR 3-22]. Of these, 161 (77%) were responders and 47 (23%) were non-responders. Out of 13 biomarkers, four biomarkers (ANG2, GDF15, FGF23 and MyBPC3) were significantly different between responders and non-responders (p ≤0.001). A biomarker panel using these four biomarkers could predict LVEF recovery after CA for AF with an AUC of 0.72 (95%CI 0.64-0.81) overall, 0.69 (95%CI 0.59-0.78) in HFmrEF and 0.88 (95%CI 0.77-0.98) in HFrEF (Figure, A). Only ANG2 and GDF15 remained significantly associated with LVEF recovery after adjustment for age, sex, and the Antwerp score. The AUC of the Antwerp score for prediction of LVEF recovery improved from 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.83, Figure, B) to 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86, Figure, C) in the overall population, from 0.71 (95% CI 0.61-0.81) to 0.74 (95% CI 0.64-0.84) in case of HFmrEF and from 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.97) to 0.92 (95% CI 0.85-0.99) in case of HFrEF when ANG2 and GDF15 were included in the model. Conclusion A biomarker panel using ANG2, GDF15, FGF23 and MyBPC3 performs similarly for prediction of LVEF recovery after CA in AF compared to the Antwerp score. The biomarkers ANG2 and GDF15 slightly improve the predictive value of the Antwerp score.Figure

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Transcatheter Intervention, Surgery, and Pharmacological Treatment of Functional Mitral Regurgitation — A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis with ≥12-Month Follow-up

Aim: Evaluate, using a Bayesian network meta-analysis system, the long-term prognosis of patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) undergoing individual or combined treatment with percutaneous intervention, surgical intervention, or optimal medical therapy. Compare the prognostic outcomes of the different treatment modalities. Methods: Computerized searches of Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were searched to compare prognoses following transcatheter interventions, surgery, and optimal pharmacological treatment for FMR, all with a construction timeframe of 21 October 2023. The primary endpoint event was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint events were heart failure readmission rate, mitral regurgitation (MR) ≤2+ improvement rate, New York Heart Association (NYHA) improvement rate (improvement to I–II), and degree of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement. Results: Twenty-six (26) papers were included, comprising 10 RCTs and 16 observational studies involving 5443 patients. A network meta-analysis showed no significant difference in prognosis for all-cause mortality among transcatheter interventions, surgical procedures, and optimal pharmacological treatments. For heart failure readmission rates, mitral valve surgery was superior to MitraClip (odds ratio (OR) = 11.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.67, 90.13). For NYHA (improvement to I–II) improvement rates, the results showed no significant differences for the various mitral interventions. For MR ≤2+ improvement rates, the MitraClip (OR = 3.07; 95% CI: 2.42, 3.76), MitraClip+Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) (OR = 2.93; 95% CI: 2.38, 3.52), mitral valve surgery (OR = 3.01; 95% CI: 2.24, 3.8), and annuloplasty (OR = 4.31; 95% CI: 3.12, 5.58) were superior to GDMT, and mitral valve surgery (OR = 0.07; 95% CI: –0.45, 0.62) was superior to MitraClip+GDMT. For the degree of improvement in LVEF, Carillon+GDMT (mean difference (MD) = –0.97; 95% CI: –1.72, –0.22) was superior to GDMT, mitral valve surgery was superior to Carillon+GDMT (MD = 4.67; 95% CI: 0.92, 8.39); MitraClip+GDMT (MD = 4.01; 95% CI: 1.28, 6.66), GDMT (MD = 3.71; 95% CI: 0.04, 7.35), and annuloplasty were superior to mitral valve surgery (MD = –6.42; 95% CI: –11.96, –0.78). Conclusion: There were no significant differences among the three treatment modalities of transcatheter intervention, surgery, and optimal drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality hard endpoint events, and no significant differences were seen in the rates of heart failure readmission and NYHA improvement (improvement to I–II). However, surgery was superior to transcatheter intervention and optimal drug therapy in terms of improvement in the degree of regurgitation and LVEF.

HEART FAILURE PATIENTS WITH IMPROVED EJECTION FRACTION: INSIGHTS FROM THE MECKI SCORE DATABASE

Abstract Aims Improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction is a major goal of heart failure (HF) treatment. However, data on clinical characteristics, exercise performance and prognosis in HF patients who improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) are scarce. The study aimed to determine whether HFimpEF patients have a distinct clinical phenotype, biology and prognosis than HF patients with persistently reduced ejection fraction (pHFrEF). Methods 7948 patients enrolled in the Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Indexes (MECKI) score database were evaluated (median follow–up of 1490 days). We analyzed clinical, laboratory, ECG, echocardiographic, exercise, and survival data from HFimpEF (n=1504) and pHFrEF (n=6017) patients. The primary endpoint of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death, left ventricular assist device implantation, and urgent heart transplantation. Results Main results are shown in Figure 1. HFimpEF patients had lower HF severity: LVEF 44.0[41.0–47.0] vs. 29.7[24.1–34.5]%, BNP 122[65–296] vs. 373[152–888] pg/mL, hemoglobin 13.5[12.2–14.6] vs. 13.7[12.5–14.7] g/dL, renal function by MDRD 72.0[56.7– 89.3] vs. 70.4[54.5–85.3] mL/min, peakVO2 62.2[50.7–74.1] vs. 52.6[41.8–64.3]%pred, VE/VCO2 slope 30.0[26.9–34.4] vs. 32.1[28.0–38.0] in HFimpEF and pHFrEF, respectively (p&amp;lt;0.001 for all). Cardiovascular mortality rates were 26.6 and 46.9 per 1000 person–years for HFimpEF and pHFrEF, respectively (p&amp;lt;0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis (Fig.2) showed that HFimpEF had better a long–term prognosis compared with pHFrEF patients. After adjustment for variables differentiating HFimpEF from pHFrEF, except echocardiographic parameters, the Kaplan–Meier curves showed the same prognosis. Conclusions HFimpEF represents a peculiar group of HF patients whose clinical, laboratory, ECG, echocardiographic, and exercise characteristics parallel the recovery of systolic function. Nonetheless, these patients remain at risk for adverse outcome.

QRS INDEX TO PREDICT CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY RESPONSE: A TRICENTRIC STUDY

Abstract Background Several studies have evaluated the role of QRS duration (QRSd) or QRS narrowing as a predictor of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) to reduce non–responders. Purpose The aim of our study was to determine the correlation between the relative change in QRS narrowing index (QI) compared to clinical outcome and prognosis in patients who underwent CRT implantation. Methods A three–center study involving 398 patients with a CRT device was conducted. Clinical variables, echocardiographic parameters and drug therapies, QRS duration before and after CRT implantation, and QRS index (QI) were measured. Results In a six–month follow–up, a significant improvement in left ventricle ejection fraction (EF), left ventricle end–diastolic and systolic volumes (LVEDV and LVESV) were observed. QI was significantly related to reverse remodelling (r = +0.22; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.32, p= 0.001) and the cut–off value that best predicted LV reverse remodelling was 12.25% (AUC 0.7, p=0.001). At 24 months, a statistically significant difference was found between patients with a QI &amp;lt; 12.25% and those with a QI &amp;gt; 12.25%, regarding NYHA class worsening (p= 0,04). The mean of the QI of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was lower than patients who died of other causes (p=0,0179). A correlation between pre–CRT QRSd/LVEDV and QI was observed (r = +0.20; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.30, p=0.0003). A higher QRSd/LVEDV ratio was associated with an improved LVEF, LVEDV, LVESV (p &amp;lt;0.0001) at follow–up. Conclusions QI narrowing after CRT was related to greater echocardiographic reverse remodelling and lower rate of adverse events. The QI can improve adverse events’ prediction in a population with CRT regardless of comorbidities according to the Charlson Comorbidity index. QI could be used to predict CRT response.