Al‐Khatib, Sana M.

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.

Background: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the risk of bleeding and major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin. Methods: The ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an increased risk of stroke. Patients in ARISTOTLE without severe renal (creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min) or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17 423). NSAID use at baseline, NSAID use during the trial (incident NSAID use), and never users were described. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. NSAID use during the trial, and the interaction between randomized treatment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Those with baseline NSAID use (n=832 [4.8%]), incident NSAID use (n=2185 [13.2%]), and never users were similar in median age (age [25th, 75th]; 70 [64, 77] versus 70 [63, 75] versus 70 [62, 76]). Those with NSAID use at baseline and incident NSAID use were more likely to have a history of bleeding than never users (24.5% versus 21.0% versus 15.6%, respectively). During a median follow-up (25th, 75th) of 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) years and when excluding those taking NSAID at baseline, we found that incident NSAID use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.11–2.33]) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16–2.48]), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. No significant interaction was observed between NSAID use and randomized treatment for any outcome. Conclusions: A substantial number of patients in the ARISTOTLE trial took NSAIDs. Incident NSAID use was associated with major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, but not with gastrointestinal bleeding. The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSAID use. This study warrants more investigation of the effect of NSAIDs on the outcomes of patients treated with apixaban. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

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.

Abstract Aims The incidence of and factors associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD) early after an acute heart failure (HF) hospital admission have not been well defined. Methods and results We assessed SCD and ventricular arrhythmias in the Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial, which included patients with acute HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. SCD, resuscitated SCD (RSCD), and sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) were adjudicated from randomization through 30 days and were combined into a composite endpoint. Baseline characteristics associated with this composite were determined by logistic regression. RSCD and VT/VF were included as time-dependent variables in a Cox model evaluating the association of these variables with 180-day all-cause mortality. Among 7011 patients, the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 3.8%; SCD accounted for 17% of these deaths. The 30-day composite event rate was 1.8% (n = 121). Ten patients had more than one event with 30-day Kaplan–Meier event rates of 0.6% for SCD [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5%–0.9%, n = 43], 0.4% for RSCD (95% CI 0.2%–0.5%, n = 24), and 0.9% for VT/VF (95% CI 0.7%–1.2%, n = 64). In the multivariable model, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of VT, male sex, and longer QRS duration were associated with SCD, RSCD, or VT/VF. A RSCD or VT/VF event was associated with higher 180-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 6.6, 95% CI 4.8–9.1, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Approximately 2% of patients admitted for acute HF experienced SCD, RSCD, or VT/VF within 30 days of admission, and SCD accounted for 17% of all deaths within 30 days.

Background Prior studies have demonstrated a link between the metabolic syndrome and increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. Whether the metabolic syndrome is associated with sudden cardiac death is uncertain. Methods and Results We characterized the relationship between sudden cardiac death and metabolic syndrome status among participants of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study (1987–2012) free of prevalent coronary heart disease or heart failure. Among 13 168 participants, 357 (2.7%) sudden cardiac deaths occurred during a median follow‐up of 23.6 years. Participants with the metabolic syndrome (n=4444) had a higher cumulative incidence of sudden cardiac death than those without it (n=8724) (4.1% versus 2.3%, P <0.001). After adjustment for participant demographics and clinical factors other than components of the metabolic syndrome, the metabolic syndrome was independently associated with sudden cardiac death (hazard ratio, 1.70, 95% confidence interval, 1.37–2.12, P <0.001). This relationship was not modified by sex (interaction P =0.10) or race (interaction P =0.62) and was mediated by the metabolic syndrome criteria components. The risk of sudden cardiac death varied according to the number of metabolic syndrome components (hazard ratio 1.31 per additional component of the metabolic syndrome, 95% confidence interval, 1.19–1.44, P <0.001). Of the 5 components, elevated blood pressure, impaired fasting glucose, and low high‐density lipoprotein were independently associated with sudden cardiac death. Conclusions We observed that the metabolic syndrome was associated with a significantly increased risk of sudden cardiac death irrespective of sex or race. The risk of sudden cardiac death was proportional to the number of metabolic syndrome components.

Advances in the field of defibrillation have brought to practice different types of devices that include the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), and the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator. To ensure optimal use of these devices and to achieve best patient outcomes, clinicians need to understand how these devices work, learn the characteristics of patients who qualify them for one type of device versus another, and recognize the remaining gaps in knowledge surrounding these devices. The transvenous ICD has been shown in several randomized clinical trials to improve the survival of patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation and those with sustained ventricular tachycardia with syncope or systolic heart failure as a result of ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy despite receiving guideline-directed medical therapy. Important gaps in knowledge regarding the transvenous ICD involve the role of the ICD in patient subgroups not included, or not well represented, in clinical trials and the need to refine the selection criteria for the ICD in patients who are indicated for it. S-ICDs were recently introduced into the clinical arena as another option for many patients who have an approved indication for a transvenous ICD. The main advantage of the S-ICD is a lower risk of infection and lead-related complications; however, the S-ICD does not offer bradycardia or antitachycardia pacing. The S-ICD may be ideal for patients with limited vascular access, high infection risk, or some congenital heart diseases. However, more data are needed regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of the S-ICD in comparison to transvenous ICDs, the extent of defibrillation testing required, and the use of the S-ICD with other novel technologies, including leadless pacemakers. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS width ≥130 ms, and New York Heart Association class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms despite treatment with guideline-directed medical therapy. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves survival, quality of life, and several echocardiographic measures. One main challenge related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the 30% nonresponse rate. Many initiatives are underway to address this challenge including improved cardiac resynchronization therapy and imaging technologies and enhanced selection of patients and device programming.