Presence of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a poor prognostic marker in patients with Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) and Left Bundle Branch Block (LBBB)

Abstract Background Observational data indicate that between 20-30% of patients with HFrEF have LBBB. While numerous independent variables are implicated in the overall prognosis of these patients, this group of patients respond poorly to medical therapy. Presence of AF further impairs the functioning of the left ventricle by several mechanisms e.g., left atrial dilatation, decreased left ventricular filling, irregular cycle length, functional mitral regurgitation etc. Literature is sparse on the cumulative effect of AF in this group of patients. Purpose To assess the effect of AF on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and mortality in patients presenting with HFrEF and LBBB Methods Single centre, retrospective, observational study over 33 months (Jan 2021 – Sept 2023). Patients with HFrEF and LBBB (as defined by the European Society of Cardiology, 2021) identified from the heart failure database. Results (Table) N=80 Whole cohort: age 74.8 +/- 13.6 years (median:79, range 39-96); 57/80 (67.5%) males. Hypertension [41/80 (51.3%)] was most common comorbidity. Majority were on 3 drugs (23/80, 28.8%) of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) with ~1 in 4 patients [19/80 (23.8%)] on all 4 drugs. 32/80 (40.0%) were in AF, remainder in sinus rhythm (SR). Mean baseline LVEF: 21.8 +/- 8.4. Mean LVEF continued to be ≤35% (paired echocardiograms available in 50.0% patients) inspite of GDMT. The QRS duration continued to prolong on follow-up. Patients in AF were statistically significantly older, were less often on all 4 GDMT drugs (particularly sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors - SGLT2i’s), and were less likely to survive than those in SR. No difference in comorbid conditions or QRS prolongation on follow-up were seen between patients with AF versus SR. There was trend towards a larger increase in mean LVEF in patients with SR than AF. Conclusions In our experience, patients with HFrEF and LBBB continue to have a high mortality (45.0% at ~ 3 years) inspite of GDMT. AF is seen in a high percentage of patients (40.0%) in this cohort, worsening the prognosis further, with mortality nearly 3 times higher than those in SR. Aggressive management of patients with HFrEF and LBBB with, where indicated, early cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) and more so, of those with AF (with +/- atrioventricular node ablation or left atrial ablation) should be considered at an early stage after diagnosis.Table

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Heart Journal
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.841
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Presence of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a poor prognostic marker in patients with Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) and Left Bundle Branch Block (LBBB)

Sanjiv Petkar, Saurabh Deshpande, Mara Masullo
European Heart Journal
Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
article

Presence of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a poor prognostic marker in patients with Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) and Left Bundle Branch Block (LBBB)

Sanjiv Petkar, Saurabh Deshpande, Mara Masullo
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Observational data indicate that between 20-30% of patients with HFrEF have LBBB. While numerous independent variables are implicated in the overall prognosis of these patients, this group of patients respond poorly to medical therapy. Presence of AF further impairs the functioning of the left ventricle by several mechanisms e.g., left atrial dilatation, decreased left ventricular filling, irregular cycle length, functional mitral regurgitation etc. Literature is sparse on the cumulative effect of AF in this group of patients. Purpose To assess the effect of AF on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and mortality in patients presenting with HFrEF and LBBB Methods Single centre, retrospective, observational study over 33 months (Jan 2021 – Sept 2023). Patients with HFrEF and LBBB (as defined by the European Society of Cardiology, 2021) identified from the heart failure database. Results (Table) N=80 Whole cohort: age 74.8 +/- 13.6 years (median:79, range 39-96); 57/80 (67.5%) males. Hypertension [41/80 (51.3%)] was most common comorbidity. Majority were on 3 drugs (23/80, 28.8%) of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) with ~1 in 4 patients [19/80 (23.8%)] on all 4 drugs. 32/80 (40.0%) were in AF, remainder in sinus rhythm (SR). Mean baseline LVEF: 21.8 +/- 8.4. Mean LVEF continued to be ≤35% (paired echocardiograms available in 50.0% patients) inspite of GDMT. The QRS duration continued to prolong on follow-up. Patients in AF were statistically significantly older, were less often on all 4 GDMT drugs (particularly sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors - SGLT2i’s), and were less likely to survive than those in SR. No difference in comorbid conditions or QRS prolongation on follow-up were seen between patients with AF versus SR. There was trend towards a larger increase in mean LVEF in patients with SR than AF. Conclusions In our experience, patients with HFrEF and LBBB continue to have a high mortality (45.0% at ~ 3 years) inspite of GDMT. AF is seen in a high percentage of patients (40.0%) in this cohort, worsening the prognosis further, with mortality nearly 3 times higher than those in SR. Aggressive management of patients with HFrEF and LBBB with, where indicated, early cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) and more so, of those with AF (with +/- atrioventricular node ablation or left atrial ablation) should be considered at an early stage after diagnosis.Table

European Heart JournalVol. 45(Supplement_1)
New Cross Hospital (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.