Clinical characteristics and atrial fibrillation management in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction

• Published in: European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care Vol. 13; no. Supplement_1
• Main Authors: Khutsishvili, N, Amran, S A N, Cabello Monotya, F E, Stavtseva, Y V, Davletova, M A, Kobalava, Z H D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 09.05.2024
• ISSN: 2048-8726; 2048-8734
• DOI: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuae036.049

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None. Background Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist. AF management in HF is currently changing with increasing role of rhythm control. Data about clinical characteristics and AF management in hospitalized patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are lacking. The purpose of the study was to assess the clinical characteristics and AF management in hospitalized patients with NVAF and HFrEF and compare them to those of NVAF and HFpEF. Methods Consecutive NVAF patients hospitalized with HF decompensation between January 2020 and May 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: HFrEF and HFpEF (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%). Clinical characteristics and AF treatment strategy in both groups were studied and compared. Numerical data are expressed as median (interquartile range). P<0.05 was considered significant. Results In a total of 388 AF-HF patients (age 73.5 years [66-82], 59.3% males), 147 (37.9%) had reduced ejection fraction. Patients with HFrEF compared to those with HFpEF were younger (69.3 vs 74.7 years; P < 0.001), more often male and with a higher rate of NYHA classes III-IV (73.9% vs 63.5%; P < 0.05), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level (2658.5 pg/ml vs 1799.1 pg/ml; p<0.001), sum of B-lines by lung ultrasound (35.2 vs 28.9; P<0.05) and prevalence of non-paroxysmal forms of AF (70.4% vs 50.4%; p < 0.05). Patients with HFrEF had a higher burden of coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease and prior stroke (31.7% vs 19.2%, 83.9% vs 69.0, 18.5% vs 9.7%, respectively; p< 0.05 for all) than HFpEF patients. Patients with HFpEF were more likely than those with HFrEF to have diabetes mellitus (25.9% vs 37.1%; p< 0.05) The subgroup of patients with HFrEF compared to those with HFpEF had higher bleeding risk (HAS-BLED ≥3 in 32.1% vs 20.4%, P<0.05) due to more frequent abnormal renal/liver function, concomitant antithrombotic treatment/alcohol, prior stroke (24.7% vs 10.6%, 28.4% vs 16.8%, 18.5% vs 9.7%, respectively; P<0.05 for all) but lower thromboembolic risk according to CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (4.0 vs 4.4; p < 0.05). Oral anticoagulants (OAC) were administered in 88% of patients on discharge. Patterns of anticoagulation administration didn’t differ between the two groups. Patients with HFrEF were less likely to receive first-line rhythm control for AF compared to HFpEF patients (36.1% vs 68.1%; p<0.05). Conclusion Hospitalized patients with NVAF and HFrEF compared to those with HFpEF were younger, with greater severity of HF, higher burden of comorbidities and bleeding risk and slightly lower thromboembolic risk. Despite different clinical characteristics, OAC administration patterns were similar and OAC prescription rate was not optimal in both groups. There is a need for improvement of guideline adherence to first-line rhythm control strategy in AF and HFrEF.