Kirchhof, Paulus

Abstract Aims Cardiogenic shock (CS) is often treated with catecholamines titrated to an adequate target mean arterial pressure (MAP) while minimizing adverse effects. We aim to assess the optimal catecholamine dose/MAP balance in heart failure-associated CS (HF-CS). Methods Patients with HF-CS were retrospectively enrolled from 16 tertiary centres in 5 European countries (2016–2021; NCT03313687). Dosage was quantified by inotropic scores (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dobutamine). Associations of baseline and seven-day summarized dosage with intensive care unit (ICU) discharge (mixed-effects logistic regression) and 30-day mortality (Cox regression) were analysed. Potential catecholamine/MAP target ratios for optimized outcomes were assessed in models adjusted for age, sex, pH, lactate and prior resuscitation, stratified by centre. Results N = 704 patients: median age 63 years, 74% male, 34% post-resuscitation, median lactate 5.2 mmol/l. Of these, 53% were discharged from ICU, 48% died within 30 days. Higher inotropic scores independently predicted a lower probability of ICU discharge (baseline score: OR 0.78 [95%-CI 0.69–0.88]; summarized score: OR 0.46 [0.38–0.56]; both P < .001) and higher risk of 30-day mortality (baseline score: HR 1.27 [1.15–1.40], summarized score HR 1.83 [1.60–2.09]; both P < .001). A score/MAP ratio <0.403 µg/kg/min/mmHg was associated with higher ICU discharge odds (ceiling effect); a < 0.426 µg/kg/min/mmHg with lower 30-day mortality hazards (no ceiling effect). Lowering catecholamine doses by accepting reduced MAP targets was linked to better outcomes. Conclusion In HF-CS, higher catecholamine support independently associates with worse outcomes. Accepting lower blood pressure targets to reduce catecholamine dosage may improve outcomes. Validation in randomized controlled trials is urgently needed.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasingly diagnosed early, close to its first occurrence due to: (i) increased public awareness with self-screening; (ii) health care initiatives including population screening and opportunistic case finding; and (iii) increased use and surveillance of implantable cardiac devices. At its onset, AF is often low burden, and cardiovascular co-morbidities may be absent or at an early stage. Thus, the management of recent-onset AF has become an issue of growing importance. Professional guidelines have traditionally focused on anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis, generally recommending a cautious approach to rhythm control, and priority has been given to rate control to alleviate symptoms. In recent guidelines, the importance of managing lifestyle and co-morbidities has increased. The AF-SCREEN collaboration proposes that a vigorous approach to active management of recent-onset AF may be warranted. This includes addressing co-morbidities and promoting healthy lifestyles to prevent the emergence or progression of AF and associated cardiovascular disease, as well as the initiation of active rhythm control ± anticoagulation to prevent AF-related morbidity and mortality, including stroke and heart failure (HF). Intuitively, intervention early after AF onset would be beneficial since lifestyle and co-morbidity management, plus rhythm control and anticoagulation, are important contributors to improved outcomes in patients with established AF, but robust evidence is lacking for recent-onset AF. There is a delicate balance between achieving favourable outcomes such as preventing strokes, HF and AF progression vs the complications and potential adverse effects of interventions. Given the serious long-term consequences, innovative approaches are necessary to determine the value and risks of initiating active therapy very early in the course of AF. More data are needed to guide the best management of recent-onset AF, bearing AF burden in mind. Long-term studies using large national databases linked to electronic medical records and rhythm monitoring devices offer excellent opportunities. Shorter-term studies focusing on reducing AF burden to slow AF progression and studies focusing on outcomes such as HF could be used in both randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a globally prevalent cardiac arrhythmia with significant genetic underpinnings, as highlighted by recent large-scale genetic studies. A prominent clinical and genetic overlap exists between AF, heritable ventricular cardiomyopathies, and arrhythmia syndromes, underlining the potential of AF as an early indicator of severe ventricular disease in younger individuals. Indeed, several recent studies have demonstrated meaningful yields of rare pathogenic variants among early-onset AF patients (∼4%–11%), most notably for cardiomyopathy genes in which rare variants are considered clinically actionable. Genetic testing thus presents a promising opportunity to identify monogenetic defects linked to AF and inherited cardiac conditions, such as cardiomyopathy, and may contribute to prognosis and management in early-onset AF patients. A first step towards recognizing this monogenic contribution was taken with the Class IIb recommendation for genetic testing in AF patients aged 45 years or younger by the 2023 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for AF. By identifying pathogenic genetic variants known to underlie inherited cardiomyopathies and arrhythmia syndromes, a personalized care pathway can be developed, encompassing more tailored screening, cascade testing, and potentially genotype-informed prognosis and preventive measures. However, this can only be ensured by frameworks that are developed and supported by all stakeholders. Ambiguity in test results such as variants of uncertain significance remain a major challenge and as many as ∼60% of people with early-onset AF might carry such variants. Patient education (including pretest counselling), training of genetic teams, selection of high-confidence genes, and careful reporting are strategies to mitigate this. Further challenges to implementation include financial barriers, insurability issues, workforce limitations, and the need for standardized definitions in a fast-moving field. Moreover, the prevailing genetic evidence largely rests on European descent populations, underscoring the need for diverse research cohorts and international collaboration. Embracing these challenges and the potential of genetic testing may improve AF care. However, further research—mechanistic, translational, and clinical—is urgently needed.

Background: A recent subanalysis of the EAST-AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial) suggests a stronger benefit of early rhythm control (ERC) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high comorbidity burden when compared to patients with a lower comorbidity burden. Methods: We identified 109 739 patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in a large United States deidentified administrative claims database (OptumLabs) and 11 625 patients in the population-based UKB (UK Biobank). ERC was defined as atrial fibrillation ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy within the first year after atrial fibrillation diagnosis. Patients were classified as (1) ERC and high comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥4); (2) ERC and lower comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 2–3); (3) no ERC and high comorbidity burden; and (4) no ERC and lower comorbidity burden. Patients without an elevated comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 0–1) were excluded. Propensity score overlap weighting and cox proportional hazards regression were used to balance patients and compare groups for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction as well as for a primary composite safety outcome of death, stroke, and serious adverse events related to ERC. Results: In both cohorts, ERC was associated with a reduced risk for the primary composite outcome in patients with a high comorbidity burden (OptumLabs: hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI 0.72–0.95]; P =0.006; UKB: hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63–0.94]; P =0.009). In patients with a lower comorbidity burden, the difference in outcomes was not significant (OptumLabs: hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.54–1.57]; P =0.767; UKB: hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.83–1.06]; P =0.310). The comorbidity burden interacted with ERC in the UKB (interaction- P =0.027) but not in OptumLabs (interaction- P =0.720). ERC was not associated with an increased risk for the primary safety outcome. Conclusions: ERC is safe and may be more favorable in a population-based sample of patients with high a comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥4).

Background EAST‐AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial) demonstrated clinical benefit of early rhythm‐control therapy (ERC) in patients with new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant cardiovascular conditions compared with current guideline‐based practice. This study aimed to evaluate the generalizability of EAST‐AFNET 4 in routine practice. Methods and Results Using a US administrative database, we identified 109 739 patients with newly diagnosed AF during the enrollment period of EAST‐AFNET 4. Patients were classified as either receiving ERC, using AF ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy, within the first year after AF diagnosis (n=27 106) or not receiving ERC (control group, n=82 633). After propensity score overlap weighting, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare groups for the primary composite outcome of all‐cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction. Most patients (79 948 of 109 739; 72.9%) met the inclusion criteria for EAST‐AFNET 4. ERC was associated with a reduced risk for the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75–0.97 [ P =0.02]) with largely consistent results between eligible (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76–1.04 [ P =0.14]) or ineligible (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60–0.98 [ P =0.04]) patients for EAST‐AFNET 4 trial inclusion. ERC was associated with lower risk of stroke in the overall cohort and in trial‐eligible patients. Conclusions This analysis replicates the clinical benefit of ERC seen in EAST‐AFNET 4. The results support adoption of ERC as part of the management of recently diagnosed AF in the United States.

Background Lactic acidosis is associated with mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). Elevated lactate levels and systemic acidemia (low blood pH) have both been proposed as drivers of death. We, therefore, analyzed the association of both high lactate concentrations and low blood pH with 30‐day mortality in patients with CS. Methods and Results This was a 2‐center historical cohort study of unselected patients with CS with available data for admission lactate level or blood pH. CS severity was graded using the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock classification. All‐cause survival at 30 days was analyzed using Kaplan‐Meier curves and Cox proportional‐hazards analysis. There were 1814 patients with CS (mean age, 67.3 years; 68.5% men); 51.8% had myocardial infarction and 53.0% had cardiac arrest. The distribution of SCAI shock stages was B, 10.8%; C, 30.7%; D, 38.1%; and E, 18.7%. In both cohorts, higher lactate or lower pH predicted a higher risk of adjusted 30‐day mortality. Patients with a lactate ≥5 mmol/L or pH <7.2 were at increased risk of adjusted 30‐day mortality; patients with both lactate ≥5 mmol/L and pH <7.2 had the highest risk of adjusted 30‐day mortality. Patients in SCAI shock stages C, D, and E had higher 30‐day mortality in each SCAI shock stage if they had lactate ≥5 mmol/L or pH <7.2, particularly if they met both criteria. Conclusions Higher lactate and lower pH predict mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock beyond standard measures of shock severity. Severe lactic acidosis may serve as a risk modifier for the SCAI shock classification. Definitions of refractory or hemometabolic shock should include high lactate levels and low blood pH.

Aims Early risk stratification is essential to guide treatment in cardiogenic shock (CS). Existing CS risk scores were derived in selected cohorts, without accounting for the heterogeneity of CS. The aim of this study was to develop a universal risk score (the Cardiogenic Shock Score, CSS) for all CS patients, irrespective of the underlying cause. Methods and results Within a registry of 1308 CS unselected patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital between 2009 and 2019, a Cox regression model was fitted to derive the CSS, with 30‐day mortality as main outcome. The CSS's predictive ability was compared to the IABP‐SHOCK II score, the CardShock score and SCAI classification by C‐indices and validated in an external cohort of 934 CS patients. Based on the Cox regression, nine predictors were included in the CSS: age, sex, acute myocardial infarction (AMI‐CS), systolic blood pressure, heart rate, pH, lactate, glucose and cardiac arrest. The CSS had the highest C‐index in the overall cohort (0.740 vs. 0.677/0.683 for IABP‐SHOCK II score/CardShock score), in patients with AMI‐CS (0.738 vs. 0.675/0.689 for IABP‐SHOCK II score/CardShock score) and in patients with non‐AMI‐CS (0.734 vs. 0.677/0.669 for IABP‐SHOCK II score/CardShock score). In the external validation cohort, the CSS had a C‐index of 0.73, which was higher than all other tested scores. Conclusion The CSS provides improved information on the risk of death in unselected patients with CS compared to existing scores, irrespective of its cause. Because it is based on point‐of‐care variables which can be obtained even in critical situations, the CSS has the potential to guide treatment decisions in CS.

Abstract Background The Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial (EAST-AFNET 4) demonstrated clinical benefit of early rhythm-control therapy in patients with recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant cardiovascular conditions (CHA2DS2-VASc-Score ≥2) compared to the current practice of limited rhythm-control therapy to improve AF-related symptoms. Purpose To evaluate the generalizability of the EAST-AFNET 4 trial in routine practice, we assessed the proportion of patients who would have met trial eligibility and examined the association between early rhythm-control and clinical outcomes. Methods Using a large US administrative database, we identified 109,739 patients with newly diagnosed AF from July 28th, 2011 to December 30th, 2016, the enrollment period of the EAST-AFNET 4 trial. Eligibility for trial inclusion was assessed based on inclusion criteria. Eligible patients were classified as either receiving early rhythm-control, i.e AF ablation and/or any antiarrhythmic drug therapy, within the first year after AF diagnosis (N=27,106) or patients not receiving early rhythm-control (N=82,633). The date 12 months after the first AF diagnosis was defined as the index date and the start of the follow up period. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to balance patients on 90 baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare early rhythm-control with no early rhythm-control for the primary outcome of a composite end point of all-cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction. Results Eligible for the trial were 72.9% (82,633/109,739) of all patients with newly diagnosed AF. Early rhythm-control therapy was associated with a reduction in the composite end point in the overall cohort of patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–0.97; P=0.015) with largely consistent treatment effects between patients eligible or ineligible for the trial. The reduction of stroke risk associated with early rhythm-control therapy was found in the overall cohort (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47–0.93; P=0.017) and in the trial-eligible cohort (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.45–0.98; P=0.041). Conclusion In a large health care data set, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed AF were eligible for the trial. Early rhythm-control therapy was associated with a 15% reduction in the composite end point of all-cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction, with the greatest benefit in the reduction of stroke risk. The treatment effect was consistent between patients eligible or ineligible for the trial. Patients in routine practice had higher rates of adverse outcomes than the trial, but the relative risk reduction with early rhythm-control therapy was similar. These data demonstrate the potential of early rhythm-control therapy to reduce outcomes in patients with AF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): German Heart Foundation (Mit Fördermitteln der Deutschen Herzstiftung e.V.)

There has been sustained focus on the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure; yet, apart from stroke prevention, the evidence base for the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence, AF progression, and AF‐related complications is modest. Although there are multiple observational studies, there are few large, robust, randomized trials providing definitive effective approaches for the secondary prevention of AF. Given the increasing incidence and prevalence of AF nationally and internationally, the AF field needs transformative research and a commitment to evidenced‐based secondary prevention strategies. We report on a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute virtual workshop directed at identifying knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the secondary prevention of AF. Once AF has been detected, lifestyle changes and novel models of care delivery may contribute to the prevention of AF recurrence, AF progression, and AF‐related complications. Although benefits seen in small subgroups, cohort studies, and selected randomized trials are impressive, the widespread effectiveness of AF secondary prevention strategies remains unknown, calling for development of scalable interventions suitable for diverse populations and for identification of subpopulations who may particularly benefit from intensive management. We identified critical research questions for 6 topics relevant to the secondary prevention of AF: (1) weight loss; (2) alcohol intake, smoking cessation, and diet; (3) cardiac rehabilitation; (4) approaches to sleep disorders; (5) integrated, team‐based care; and (6) nonanticoagulant pharmacotherapy. Our goal is to stimulate innovative research that will accelerate the generation of the evidence to effectively pursue the secondary prevention of AF.

AbstractAimsCardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with poor outcomes in older patients, but it remains unclear if this is due to higher shock severity. We sought to determine the associations between age and shock severity on mortality among patients with CS.Methods and resultsPatients with a diagnosis of CS from Mayo Clinic (2007–15) and University Clinic Hamburg (2009–17) were subdivided by age. Shock severity was graded using the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages. Predictors of 30-day survival were determined using Cox proportional-hazards analysis. We included 1749 patients (934 from Mayo Clinic and 815 from University Clinic Hamburg), with a mean age of 67.6 ± 14.6 years, including 33.6% females. Acute coronary syndrome was the cause of CS in 54.0%. The distribution of SCAI shock stages was 24.1%; C, 28.0%; D, 33.2%; and E, 14.8%. Older patients had similar overall shock severity, more co-morbidities, worse kidney function, and decreased use of mechanical circulatory support compared to younger patients. Overall 30-day survival was 53.3% and progressively decreased as age or SCAI shock stage increased, with a clear gradient towards lower 30-day survival as a function of increasing age and SCAI shock stage. Progressively older age groups had incrementally lower adjusted 30-day survival than patients aged &lt;50 years.ConclusionOlder patients with CS have lower short-term survival, despite similar shock severity, with a high risk of death in older patients with more severe shock. Further research is needed to determine the optimal treatment strategies for older CS patients.