Benjamin, Emelia J.

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.

Moritz F Sinner, 2012 Finalist and Presenting Author

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the strongest risk factors for ischemic stroke, which is a leading cause of disability and death. Given the aging population, increasing prevalence of AF risk factors, and improved survival in those with cardiovascular disease, the number of individuals affected by AF will continue increasing over time. While multiple proven stroke prevention therapies exist, important questions remain about the optimal approach to stroke prevention at the population and individual patient levels. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute virtual workshop focused on identifying key research opportunities related to stroke prevention in AF. The workshop reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified targeted research opportunities to advance stroke prevention in AF in the following areas: (1) improving risk stratification tools for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage; (2) addressing challenges with oral anticoagulants; and (3) delineating the optimal roles of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and surgical left atrial appendage closure/excision. This report aims to promote innovative, impactful research that will lead to more personalized, effective use of stroke prevention strategies in people with AF.

Importance Only modest attention has been paid to the contributions of social determinants of health to atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors, diagnosis, symptoms, management, and outcomes. The diagnosis of AF provides unique challenges exacerbated by the arrhythmia’s often paroxysmal nature and individuals’ disparate access to health care and technologies that facilitate detection. Social determinants of health affect access to care and management decisions for AF, increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes among individuals who experience systemic disadvantages. Developing effective approaches to address modifiable social determinants of health requires research to eliminate the substantive inequities in health care delivery and outcomes in AF. Observations The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel to identify major knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the field of social determinants of AF. The workshop addressed the following social determinants: (1) socioeconomic status and access to care; (2) health literacy; (3) race, ethnicity, and racism; (4) sex and gender; (5) shared decision-making in systemically disadvantaged populations; and (6) place, including rurality, neighborhood, and community. Many individuals with AF have multiple adverse social determinants, which may cluster in the individual and in systemically disadvantaged places (eg, rural locations, urban neighborhoods). Cumulative disadvantages may accumulate over the life course and contribute to inequities in the diagnosis, management, and outcomes in AF. Conclusions and Relevance Workshop participants identified multiple critical research questions and approaches to catalyze social determinants of health research that address the distinctive aspects of AF. The long-term aspiration of this work is to eradicate the substantive inequities in AF diagnosis, management, and outcomes across populations.

Abstract Background Whether diabetes and adipokine‐driven inflammation explain the association of obesity to cognitive impairment is unknown. Methods Structural equation models estimated the total effects of waist circumference on cognitive outcomes among African American participants cross‐sectionally (index exam) and longitudinally. Total effects were deconstructed into direct pathways of waist circumference to cognitive impairment and indirect mediation pathways through leptin, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 2 (sTNFR2), and diabetes. Waist circumference, leptin, and sTNFR2 were standardized. Cognitive impairment was defined as MMSE <21 or a z‐score < −1.5 standard deviation (SD). Incident cognitive impairment was defined among those without cognitive impairment at the index exam as follow‐up MMSE<21, z‐ score < −1.5, MMSE decline >1 point/year, or z‐score decline of >0.1 SD/year. Results Among 1008 participants (70% women, mean age 62.9 years, 14.5% with obesity, 26% with diabetes), 132 (13%) had baseline cognitive impairment. Each SD higher waist circumference was associated with higher odds of cognitive impairment, odds ratio (OR) = 1.63; (95% confidence interval: 1.17, 2.24), with mediating pathways explaining 65% of the total effect (58% from diabetes; 7% from inflammation). At follow‐up (mean 6.8 years), 106 of 535 (19.8%) had developed cognitive impairment. Each SD higher waist circumference was associated with higher odds of developing cognitive impairment (OR = 1.87; 95%CI: 1.18, 2.74); the direct effect of waist circumference explained 37% of the total effect and mediating pathways explained 63% (61% from diabetes; 2% from inflammation), although individual pathways were not statistically supported in the smaller sample. Conclusion Diabetes, and to a lesser degree, adiposity‐driven inflammation, appear to explain a substantial proportion of abdominal adiposity relationships with cognitive impairment. The impact of preventing and treating obesity on cognitive outcomes merits study.

Abstract Aims Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is a common valvular heart disease with a prevalence of &gt;2% in the general adult population. Despite this high incidence, there is a limited understanding of the molecular mechanism of this disease, and no medical therapy is available for this disease. We aimed to elucidate the genetic basis of MVP in order to better understand this complex disorder. Methods and results We performed a meta-analysis of six genome-wide association studies that included 4884 cases and 434 649 controls. We identified 14 loci associated with MVP in our primary analysis and 2 additional loci associated with a subset of the samples that additionally underwent mitral valve surgery. Integration of epigenetic, transcriptional, and proteomic data identified candidate MVP genes including LMCD1, SPTBN1, LTBP2, TGFB2, NMB, and ALPK3. We created a polygenic risk score (PRS) for MVP and showed an improved MVP risk prediction beyond age, sex, and clinical risk factors. Conclusion We identified 14 genetic loci that are associated with MVP. Multiple analyses identified candidate genes including two transforming growth factor-β signalling molecules and spectrin β. We present the first PRS for MVP that could eventually aid risk stratification of patients for MVP screening in a clinical setting. These findings advance our understanding of this common valvular heart disease and may reveal novel therapeutic targets for intervention.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

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.

Clinically recognized atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of complications, including ischemic stroke, cognitive decline, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death. It is increasingly recognized that AF frequently is undetected until complications such as stroke or heart failure occur. Hence, the public and clinicians have an intense interest in detecting AF earlier. However, the most appropriate strategies to detect undiagnosed AF (sometimes referred to as subclinical AF) and the prognostic and therapeutic implications of AF detected by screening are uncertain. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s virtual workshop focused on identifying key research priorities related to AF screening. Global experts reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified critical research priorities in the following areas: (1) role of opportunistic screening; (2) AF as a risk factor, risk marker, or both; (3) relationship between AF burden detected with long-term monitoring and outcomes/treatments; (4) designs of potential randomized trials of systematic AF screening with clinically relevant outcomes; and (5) role of AF screening after ischemic stroke. Our report aims to inform and catalyze AF screening research that will advance innovative, resource-efficient, and clinically relevant studies in diverse populations to improve the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of patients with undiagnosed AF.

The interrelationships between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are complex and poorly understood, yet the number of patients with AF and HF continues to increase worldwide. Thus, there is a need for initiatives that prioritize research on the intersection between AF and HF. This article summarizes the proceedings of a virtual workshop convened by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify important research opportunities in AF and HF. Key knowledge gaps were reviewed and research priorities were proposed for characterizing the pathophysiological overlap and deleterious interactions between AF and HF; preventing HF in people with AF; preventing AF in individuals with HF; and addressing symptom burden and health status outcomes in AF and HF. These research priorities will hopefully help inform, encourage, and stimulate innovative, cost-efficient, and transformative studies to enhance the outcomes of patients with AF and HF.