Curtis, Anne B.

AbstractCardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing‐induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre‐procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow‐up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

There is a growing appreciation for differences in epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of cardiovascular conditions by sex. Historically, cardiovascular clinical trials have under-represented females, but findings have nonetheless been applied to clinical care in a sex-agnostic manner. Thus, much of the collective knowledge about sex-specific cardiovascular outcomes result from post hoc and secondary analyses. In some cases, these investigations have revealed important sex-based differences with implications for optimizing care for female patients with arrhythmias. This review explores the available evidence related to cardiac arrhythmia care among females, with emphasis on areas in which important sex differences are known or suggested. Considerations related to improving female enrollment in clinical trials as a way to establish more robust clinical evidence for the treatment of females are discussed. Areas of remaining evidence gaps are provided, and recommendations for areas of future research and specific action items are suggested. The overarching goal is to improve appreciation for sex-based differences in cardiac arrhythmia care as 1 component of a comprehensive plan to optimize arrhythmia care for all patients.

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.

Catheter ablation has brought major advances in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). As evidenced by multiple randomized trials, AF catheter ablation can reduce the risk of recurrent AF and improve quality of life. In some studies, AF ablation significantly reduced cardiovascular hospitalizations. Despite the existing data on AF catheter ablation, numerous knowledge gaps remain concerning this intervention. This report is based on a recent virtual workshop convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to identify key research opportunities in AF ablation. We outline knowledge gaps related to emerging technologies, the relationship between cardiac structure and function and the success of AF ablation in patient subgroups in whom clinical benefit from ablation varies, and potential platforms to advance clinical research in this area. This report also considers the potential value and challenges of a sham ablation randomized trial. Prioritized research opportunities are identified and highlighted to empower relevant stakeholders to collaborate in designing and conducting effective, cost-efficient, and transformative research to optimize the use and outcomes of AF ablation.

Background: Efforts to improve prescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC) drugs in patients with atrial fibrillation have had limited success in improving guideline adherence. Methods: We evaluated adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association performance measures for OAC in eligible patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2 and trends in prescription over time in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines–AFIB (atrial fibrillation) registry. Adjusted associations with in-hospital outcomes were also determined. The cohort included 33 235 patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2 who were admitted for atrial fibrillation and were enrolled at 115 sites between January 1, 2013, and September 31, 2017. Results: The median (25th, 75th percentile) age was 73 years (65, 81 years); 51% were female; and the median (25th, 75th percentile) CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4 (3, 5). At admission, 16 206 (59.5%) of 27 221 patients with a previous diagnosis of atrial fibrillation were taking OAC agents, and OAC drug use at admission was associated with a lower adjusted odds of in-hospital ischemic stroke (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24–0.59; P <0.0001). At discharge, prescription of OAC in eligible patients (no contraindications) was 93.5% (n=25 499 of 27 270). In a sensitivity analysis, when excluding only strict contraindications (4.6%, n=1497 of 32 806), OAC prescription at discharge was 80.3%. OAC prescription at discharge was higher in those aged ≤75 years, men, those with heart failure, those with previous atrial fibrillation ablation, and those with rhythm control ( P <0.0001 for all). OAC use was lowest in Hispanic patients (90.2%, P <0.0001). Prescription of OAC at discharge in eligible patients improved over time from 79.9% to 96.6% ( P <0.0001). Conclusions: Among hospitals participating in the GWTG-AFIB quality improvement program, OAC prescription at discharge in eligible guideline-indicated patients increased significantly and improved consistently over time. These data confirm that high-level adherence to guideline-recommended stroke prevention is achievable.