Search

Background: Reduced-dose rivaroxaban (10 mg) was used in the J-ROCKET AF trial, demonstrating safety in the Asian population. It remains unclear whether treatment with reduced-dose versus full-dose rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg) is associated with all-cause mortality in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Proposed: To evaluate the effects of reduced-dose rivaroxaban on all-cause mortality in patients over 85. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled medical records representing the period from October 2012 to November 2016. The 2 × 2 factorial design incorporated age (≥85 vs. <85) and rivaroxaban use (reduced vs. full dose). The primary study outcomes were all-cause and cardiac-related mortality. Results: The study enrolled 2386 patients with a mean age of 76.6 ± 10.4 years; 51.8% were male. In the ≥85 group (n = 593), the reduced-dose subgroup had lower all-cause (5.3% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.02) and cardiac-related mortality (1.9% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), whereas the younger patients receiving reduced-dose rivaroxaban had higher all-cause mortality (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.01) but no difference in cardiac-related mortality (1.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.33). The rate of hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower in the elderly group with reduced-dose rivaroxaban (7.2% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.01) but not in the younger group. After adjusting for confounders in the older group, treatment with reduced-dose rivaroxaban was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR (aHR): 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21–0.74, p < 0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (aHR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.29–0.99, p = 0.05). No associations were found between rivaroxaban dose and cardiac-related mortality in either group, nor between younger age and any outcome. Conclusions: Reduced-dose rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Future studies can investigate the effect of reduced-dose rivaroxaban on prognoses in elderly individuals ≥85 years in the west. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: An elevated heart rate is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, the relationship between heart rate control and the long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unclear. This study explored the long-term prognostic importance of heart rate control in patients hospitalized with HFrEF. Materials and Methods: We retrieved the records of patients admitted for decompensated heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤40%, from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) during follow-up. We analyzed the outcomes using Cox proportional hazard ratios calculated using the patients' heart rates, as measured at baseline and approximately 3 months later. The mean follow-up duration was 49.0 ± 38.1 months. Results: We identified 5236 eligible patients, and divided them into five groups on the basis of changes in their heart rates. The mean LVEFs of the groups ranged from 29.1% to 30.6%. After adjustment for all covariates, the results demonstrated that lesser heart rate reductions at the 3-month screening period were associated with long-term cardiovascular death, HHF, and all-cause mortality (p for linear trend = 0.033, 0.042, and 0.003, respectively). The restricted cubic spline model revealed a linear relationship between reduction in heart rate and risk of outcomes (p for nonlinearity > 0.2). Conclusions: Greater reductions in heart rate were associated with a lower risk of long-term cardiovascular death, HHF, and all-cause mortality among patients discharged after hospitalization for decompensated HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been used in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could benefit the HFrEF patients with wide QRS durations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impacts of SAC/VAL on reverse cardiac remodelling in CRT‐eligible and CRT‐ineligible HFrEF patients with different QRS durations. Methods and results: The TAROT‐HF study was a multicentre, observational study enrolling patients who initiated SAC/VAL from 10 hospitals since 2017. Patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were classified into two groups: (i) Group 1: CRT‐eligible group, patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology plus QRS duration ≥130 ms or non‐LBBB morphology plus QRS duration ≥150 ms; and (ii) Group 2: CRT‐ineligible group. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders, and 1168 patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The improvements in LVEF and left ventricular end‐systolic volume index (LVESVi) were more significant in Group 2 than in Group 1 after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (LVEF: 8.4% ± 11.3% vs. 4.5% ± 8.1%, P < 0.001; change percentages in LVESVi: −14.4% ± 25.9% vs. −9.6% ± 23.1%, P = 0.004). LVEF improving to ≥50% in Groups 1 and 2 constituted 5.2% and 20.2% after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that wide QRS durations were negatively associated with the reverse cardiac remodelling in these HFrEF patients with SAC/VAL treatment. Conclusion: Despite SAC/VAL treatment, wide QRS durations are associated with lower degrees of left ventricular improvement than narrow ones in the HFrEF patients. Optimal intervention timing for the CRT‐eligible patients requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Reuse of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can reduce the cost of using these expensive devices. However, whether resterilized CIEDs will increase the risk of reinfection in patients with previous device infection remains unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare the reinfection rates in patients who had initial CIED infection and underwent reimplantation of resterilized CIEDs or new devices. Methods Data from patients with initial CIED infection who received debridement of the infected pocket and underwent reimplantation of new or resterilized CIEDs at MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, between January 2014 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics, relapse rates of infection, and potential contributing factors to the infection risk were examined. Results Twenty-seven patients with initial CIED infection and reimplanted new CIEDs (n = 11) or resterilized CIEDs (n = 16) were included. During the 2-year follow-up, there were 1 (9.1%) and 2 (12.5%) infection relapses in the new and resterilized CIED groups, respectively. No relapse occurred for either group if the lead was completely removed or cut short. The median duration between debridement and device reimplantation in patients with infection relapse vs patients without relapse was 97 vs 4.5 days for all included patients, and 97 vs 2 days and 50.5 vs 5.5 days for the new and resterilized CIED groups, respectively. Conclusions Subpectoral reimplanting of resterilized CIEDs in patients with previous device infection is safe and efficacious. With delicate debridement and complete extraction of the leads, the CIED pocket infection relapse risk can be greatly decreased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Changes in QRS duration in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after sacubitril/valsartan therapy is not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the association of duration of HFrEF diagnosis with electrocardiographic and echocardiographic outcomes between before and after sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: We included HFrEF patients who received naïve sacubitril/valsartan therapy for ≥3 months, between January 2016 and March 2018. All patients were divided into 2 groups based on their duration of HFrEF. Generalized linear models were analyzed the cardiac outcomes after sacubitril/valsartan therapy by HFrEF duration. Results: Among these, 42 patients were HFrEF duration of <1 year and 47 patients were ≥1 year. The mean difference of QRS duration was lesser in the <1-year group than in the ≥1-year group (−2.3 msec vs 6.3 msec; P =.029). However, the mean difference of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher in the ≥1-year group (13.8% vs 5.8%; P =.008). After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, the ≥1-year group had a significantly prolonged QRS duration (coefficient = 11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-21.7) and an unfavorable LVEF recovery (coefficient = −10.3; 95% CI −14.5 to −6.1) compared with the <1-year group. Conclusion: Prolonged QRS durations and unfavorable LVEF recoveries after sacubitril/valsartan therapy were observed in patients with HFrEF duration of ≥1 year. Earlier diagnosis of HFrEF and appropriate medication treatment may be beneficial in the improvement of QRS duration and LVEF recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second‐line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications. Methods and results: Patients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine‐first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan‐first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re‐hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine‐first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan‐first treatment (∆heart rate −9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. −4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan‐first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine‐first treatment. At the end of follow‐up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups. Conclusions: Among patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emerging data supports rhythm control to prevent major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Limited data demonstrated rivaroxaban 10 mg combining dronedarone seemed feasible. This study aimed at investigating clinical events in a dronedarone-treated cohort. This exploratory, retrospective chart review was conducted in nonpermanent AF patients receiving dronedarone for ≥ 3 months between 2009/1 and 2016/2. In Taiwan, dronedarone's labeled indication was strict to age ≥ 70 or 65 to 70 years with either hypertension, diabetes, prior stroke, or left atrium >50 mm. We divided all into 4 groups using antithrombotic strategies to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints. A total of 689 patients (mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 3.8 ± 1.4) were analyzed: rivaroxaban 10 mg (n = 93, 13.5%), warfarin (n = 89, 12.9%), antiplatelet (n = 331, 48.0%), and none (n = 176, 25.5%). During the follow-up period (mean 946 ± 493.8 days), the rivaroxaban group did not report any stroke or thromboembolism (ishcmeic stroke rate: antiplatelet [0.6%], none [1.1%]; hemorrahgic stroke rate: warfarin [2.2%]; thromboembolism rate: warfarin [2.2%]). There was no significant difference in safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints between groups. Also, >104 weeks of dronedarone use was the independent predictor for MACE after adjusting the strategy and other covariates (hazard ratio 0.14 [95% confidence interval 0.04-0.44], P =.001). Our findings warrant concomitant rivaroxaban 10 mg and dronedarone for further investigation. Regardless of antithrombotic strategies, a more extended persistence of dronedarone was associated with fewer MACE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is known and objective: Lorcaserin is a selective serotonin 2c receptor agonist approved as an anti‐obesity agent. The additional cardiometabolic benefits associated with lorcaserin have not been conclusively established. The aim of the systematic review and meta‐analysis is to examine the effects of lorcaserin on blood pressure, heart rate and other metabolic parameters in overweight and obese patients from randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central using the search terms 'lorcaserin' and 'randomized controlled trials' without language restrictions. RCTs with a follow‐up period of at least 24 weeks were included in the meta‐analysis. Results and discussion: Six studies with 9452 patients in the lorcaserin group and 9392 patients in the placebo group were included. Compared with placebo, lorcaserin not only reduced weight, BMI and waist circumference but also improved SBP, DBP, heart rate, LDL, triglycerides, fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c. Our findings suggest that lorcaserin has trivial though consistent and favourable effects on blood pressure, heart rate and metabolic syndrome. What is new and conclusion: Lorcaserin improved all cardiometabolic parameters modestly in addition to its weight loss effect in overweight and obese patients. More research is needed to determine its long‐term cardiovascular benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can measure atrial fibrillation (AF) early; however, the timing for administering antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to suppress AF remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between baseline values and changes after AAD in terms of relative reduction of AF burden (RRAB) and maximum AF duration (RRMD). Methods: This multicenter retrospective study screened all patients with nonpermanent AF who had dual‐chamber pacemakers and only enrolled those receiving a naive AAD between September 2009 and December 2014. AF burden and maximum duration were calculated using CIED at 0 and 3 to 6 months after starting rhythm control. All the enrolled patients were divided into four groups according to baseline AF burden. RRAB and RRMD were monitored using CIEDs. Results: Overall, 145 eligible subjects received a naive AAD for nonpermanent AF. The mean RRAB in the four groups (AF burden <1%, 1%‐4%, 4%‐18%, and ≥18%) were −65.3%, −46.4%, −34.7%, and −27.9% (P = 0.005), respectively. Mean RRMD were −26.8%, −12.4%, 4.2%, and 6.0%, respectively (P = 0.006). Multivariate analysis revealed that the lowest baseline AF burden (<1%) was significantly associated with greater RRAB, which was not observed in the RRMD model. Conclusions: Lower baseline AF burden was associated with greater RRAB by AADs. Our finding suggests that rhythm control should be started in the early stage to achieve better responses to AADs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose First-degree atrioventricular (AV) block in relation to the outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been well examined. Methods Patients who received a CRT defibrillator or pacemaker between January 2002 and September 2010 at Mayo Clinic were classified into 2 groups: normal PR interval and prolonged PR interval. Standard sensed (100 milliseconds) and paced (130 milliseconds) AV delay was programmed after CRT. Clinical presentations and echocardiography were assessed before CRT and at a median of 6 months after CRT. Results The normal PR interval group (n = 199) had greater improvements in heart failure functional class (mean [SD], 0.7 [0.8] vs 0.5 [0.9]; P = .03) and left ventricular ejection fraction (9.4% [12.4%] vs 5.9% [9.5%]; P = .007) than the prolonged PR group (n = 204). Conclusion Compared with prolonged PR interval, the presence of normal PR interval was associated with a greater improvement in heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unknown whether radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or antiarrhythmic therapy is superior when treating patients with symptomatic premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). Objective: To determine the relative efficacy of RFA and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) on PVC burden reduction and increasing left ventricular systolic function. Methods: Patients with frequent PVCs (>1000/24 h) were treated either by RFA or with AADs from January 2005 through December 2010. Data from 24-hour Holter monitoring and echocardiography before and 6–12 months after treatment were compared between the 2 groups. Results: Of 510 patients identified, 215 (40%) underwent RFA and 295 (60%) received AADs. The reduction in PVC frequency was greater by RFA than with AADs (–21,799/24 h vs –8,376/24 h; P < .001). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was increased significantly after RFA (53%–56%; P < .001) but not after AAD (52%– 52%; P = .6) therapy. Of 121 (24%) patients with reduced LVEF, 39 (32%) had LVEF normalization to 50% or greater. LVEF was restored in 25 of 53 (47%) patients in the RFA group compared with 14 of 68 (21%) patients in the AAD group (P = .003). PVC coupling interval less than 450 ms, less impaired left ventricular function, and RFA were independent predictors of LVEF normalization performed by using multivariate analysis. Conclusion: RFA appears to be more effective than AADs in PVC reduction and LVEF normalization. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Iron deficiency (ID) is a common comorbidity among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and is associated with poorer outcomes independent of anemia. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and prognostic significance of ID in Taiwanese patients with HFrEF., Methods: We included HFrEF patients from two multicenter cohorts at different periods. The multivariate Cox regression analysis was applied to assess the risk of outcomes associated with ID, accounting for the varying risk of death., Results: Of the 3612 patients with HFrEF registered from 2013 to 2018, 665 patients (18.4%) had available baseline iron profile measurements. Of these, 290 patients (43.6%) were iron deficient; 20.2% had ID+/anemia+, 23.4% ID+/anemia-, 21.5% ID-/anemia+, and 34.9% ID-/anemia-. Regardless of anemia status, patients with coexisting ID had a higher risk than those without ID (all-cause mortality: 14.3 vs 9.5 per 100 patient-years, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.85; p = 0.091; cardiovascular mortality: 10.5 per 100 patient-years vs 6.1, adjusted HR 1.54 [95% CI, 1.03-2.30; p = 0.037]; cardiovascular mortality or first unplanned hospitalization for HF: 36.7 vs 19.7 per 100 patient-years, adjusted HR 1.57 [95% CI, 1.22-2.01; p < 0.001]). Among patients eligible for treatment in the IRONMAN trial design (43.9%), parenteral iron therapy was estimated to reduce heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths by 13.7 per 100 patient-years., Conclusion: Iron profiles were tested in less than one-fifth of the Taiwanese HFrEF cohort. ID was present in 43.6% of tested patients and was independently associated with poor prognosis in these patients., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the subject matter or materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2023, the Chinese Medical Association.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend that all infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) should be removed. However, financial or anatomical concerns can lead to management of infection with simple debridement, as opposed to complete removal. In this observational study, we report the outcomes of our modified procedure for this real-world dilemma., Methods and Results: The Quarantine (RESQ) method is characterized as follows: the removal (R) of all non-essential foreign materials, including old sutures and leads; the excision (E) of all non-viable, chronically inflamed, granulation, or scar tissue; the sterilization (S) of the remaining generator; and the quarantine (Q) of a new pocket in the sub-muscular layer for reimplantation. From a review of electronic medical records, 30 patients were selected and divided into three groups according to the intervention used: RESQ (n = 9) in group A, simple debridement (n = 16) in group B, and guideline-recommended replacement (n = 5) in group C. Patient baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. After analyzing the proportion of patients that were free from infection one year following their respective interventions, we found that group A performed better than group B (100% and 31.2% infection-free, respectively, p = 0.001), and was comparable to group C (both 100% infection-free, p = not applicable)., Conclusions: The RESQ method is a feasible and beneficial alternative for selected patients with CIED infections who are unable to receive a generator replacement according to the recommended guideline.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the application of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice and the utility of PREDICT-HF score for outcome prediction in Asian heart failure patients with difference risk profiles., Methods: The TAROT-HF study was a multicenter, single-arm, observational study. Totally 1,187 outpatients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan were enrolled and categorized by: (1) high-risk group with ≥1 of the following three risk factors: old age (≥80 years), low baseline systolic blood pressure (<100 mmHg), and renal impairment (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ), and (2) standard-risk group, those who did not have any risk factors. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the PREDICT-HF risk model., Results: A total of 305 (25.7%) patients matched the criteria for the high-risk group. The event rates of cardiovascular death or first unplanned heart failure hospitalization (HFH) among the overall population, high-risk, and standard-risk groups were 13.7, 24.9, and 10.8 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. The C statistics for the PREDICT-HF model in the overall cohort and high-risk group for cardiovascular death or first unplanned HFH at 2 years were 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.76) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.65-0.76), respectively. The permanent discontinuation rate among the high-risk patients was significantly higher than that among the standard-risk patients (8.3 vs. 2.5 per 100 patient-years, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Real-world outcomes of the TAROT-HF study demonstrated that the PREDICT-HF model performed well in Asian HFrEF patients. Three easily detected clinical profiles of age, renal function, and systolic BP could help to identify patients at risk before initiating sacubitril/valsartan., (Copyright © 2022 Hsu, Chang, Chao, Chiou, Lin, Chung, Lin, Huang, Liang, Liao and Lee.)

Hypertension is the most important modifiable cause of cardiovascular (CV) disease and all-cause mortality worldwide. Despite the positive correlations between blood pressure (BP) levels and later CV events since BP levels as low as 100/60 mmHg have been reported in numerous epidemiological studies, the diagnostic criteria of hypertension and BP thresholds and targets of antihypertensive therapy have largely remained at the level of 140/90 mmHg in the past 30 years. The publication of both the SPRINT and STEP trials (comprising > 8,500 Caucasian/African and Chinese participants, respectively) provided evidence to shake this 140/90 mmHg dogma. Another dogma regarding hypertension management is the dependence on office (or clinic) BP measurements. Although standardized office BP measurements have been widely recommended and adopted in large-scale CV outcome trials, the practice of office BP measurements has never been ideal in real-world practice. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) is easy to perform, more likely to be free of environmental and/or emotional stress, feasible to document long-term BP variations, of good reproducibility and reliability, and more correlated with hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD) and CV events, compared to routine office BP measurements. In the 2022 Taiwan Hypertension Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TSOC) and the Taiwan Hypertension Society (THS), we break these two dogmas by recommending the definition of hypertension as ≥ 130/80 mmHg and a universal BP target of < 130/80 mmHg, based on standardized HBPM obtained according to the 722 protocol. The 722 protocol refers to duplicate BP readings taken per occasion ("2"), twice daily ("2"), over seven consecutive days ("7"). To facilitate implementation of the guidelines, a series of flowcharts encompassing assessment, adjustment, and HBPM-guided hypertension management are provided. Other key messages include that: 1) lifestyle modification, summarized as the mnemonic S-ABCDE, should be applied to people with elevated BP and hypertensive patients to reduce life-time BP burden; 2) all 5 major antihypertensive drugs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [A], angiotensin receptor blockers [A], β-blockers [B], calcium-channel blockers [C], and thiazide diuretics [D]) are recommended as first-line antihypertensive drugs; 3) initial combination therapy, preferably in a single-pill combination, is recommended for patients with BP ≥ 20/10 mmHg above targets; 4) a target hierarchy (HBPM-HMOD- ambulatory BP monitoring [ABPM]) should be considered to optimize hypertension management, which indicates reaching the HBPM target first and then keeping HMOD stable or regressed, otherwise ABPM can be arranged to guide treatment adjustment; and 5) renal denervation can be considered as an alternative BP-lowering strategy after careful clinical and imaging evaluation.

Background: Renal denervation (RDN) is effective to lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) in essential hypertension. However, patient selection under medications remains an important unmet clinical need., Methods: This multicenter study aimed at observing whether preprocedural features associated with increased renin-angiotensin-aldosterone activity influence RDN response. This study enrolled the patients who underwent RDN for uncontrolled hypertension. Medical records were reviewd and patients were divided into 2 groups depending by meeting any of the following conditions prior to RDN: (1) >10 mmHg of office SBP reduction after aldosterone inhibition, (2) aldosterone-renin ratio >30 or (3) slow flow on the renal angiogram. RDN responders were defined by a reduction in 24-hour mean ≥6 mmHg or by ≥1 class of antihypertensive drug withdraw., Results: A total of 46 patients were enrolled, of which 27 (59%) were in control group A and 19 (41%) in group B. The baseline age, gender, office and 24-hour SBP (mean 140.0 ± 12.8 mmHg vs. 144.0 ± 16.5 mmHg, p = 0.577) were comparable, while the number of prescribed drug classes was fewer in group A (4.0 ± 1.3 vs. 4.9 ± 0.9, p = 0.014). The proportion patients with prescribed aldosterone antagonist or high aldosterone-renin ratios were higher in group B. At 12 months post RDN, the results were significantly better in group B in terms of mean change in office SBP (12.4 ± 23.5 mmHg vs. 29.9 ± 25.5 mmHg, p = 0.046) and the proportion of RDN responders (51.9% vs. 89.5%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: RDN was more effective in patients with any of 3 clinical indices., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Tzung-Dau Wang is serving as one of the Editorial Board members of this journal. We declare that Tzung-Dau Wang had no involvement in the peer review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to Stefano Omboni, Brian Tomlinson and Takatoshi Kasai., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

Aims: Although the beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) compared to enalapril was consistent across ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) groups, the PARADIGM-HF study did not analyse the effect of ventricular remodelling on patients with different aetiologies, which may affect clinical treatment outcomes. This study aimed to compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following SAC/VAL treatment and its association with clinical outcomes., Methods and Results: A total of 1576 patients were analysed. Patients were grouped by LVEF changes following SAC/VAL treatment for 8-month period. LVEF improvement ≥15% was defined as 'significant improvement', and <5% or worse was classified as 'lack of improvement'. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and unplanned hospitalization for heart failure. Patients with NICM had lower baseline LVEF but improvement was significantly greater comparing to those with ICM (baseline 28.0 ± 7.7% vs. 30.1 ± 7.1%, P < 0.001, LVEF increase of 11.1 ± 12.6% vs. 6.7 ± 10.2%, P < 0.001). The effect of functional improvement of SAC/VAL on NICM patients showed bimodal distribution. Primary endpoints were inversely associated with LVEF changes in NICM patients: adjusted hazard ratio was 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.58, P < 0.001] for NICM patients with significant improvement, and was 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.16, P < 0.001) for NICM patients but lack of improvement. Primary endpoints of ICM patients did not demonstrate an association with LVEF changes., Conclusion: Patients with NICM had higher degree of LVEF improvement than those with ICM following SAC/VAL treatment, and significant improvement of LVEF in NICM patients indicates favourable outcome., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In this illustrative case, a transesophageal echocardiographic examination in a 69-year-old woman revealed normally functioning mechanical mitral prosthesis and a 4 cm left atrial heterogenous thrombus moving around her left atrium like a ping pong ball. Also visible was a thrombus within the left atrial appendage; the left atrial thrombus moved toward the mitral orifice and was bounced away by the mitral regurgitant jet.

Aims: Ivabradine has been used in patients who have chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant sinus heart rate ≥70 bpm. This administration for acute HFrEF remains a concern. This study used a real-world multicentre database to investigate the effects of ivabradine among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF before discharge., Methods and Results: This study retrospectively identified patients with acute decompensated HFrEF who were administered ivabradine at discharge from two multicentre HF databases. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and recurrent HF rehospitalization risks were then compared between those with and without ivabradine treatment. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 876 patients (age, 60.7 ± 14.6 years; female, 23.2%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 28.2% ± 7.8%; and heart rate at discharge, 84.3 ± 13.8 bpm) were included in the final analysis, including 292 and 584 patients with and without ivabradine treatment at discharge, respectively. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. At 1 year follow-up, patients in the ivabradine group had significantly lower heart rates (77.6 ± 14.7 vs. 81.1 ± 16.3 bpm; P = 0.005) and lower HF severity symptoms (New York Heart Association Functional class, 2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9; P < 0.001) than those from the non-ivabradine group. Ivabradine users had significantly lower risks of 1 year cardiovascular mortality (5.8 vs. 12.2 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), all-cause mortality (7.2 vs. 14.0 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), and total HF rehospitalization (42.3 vs. 72.6 per 100-person year; P < 0.001) than non-ivabradine users. Following multivariate analysis, the predischarge prescription of ivabradine remained independently associated with lower 1 year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.74; P = 0.002) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.72; P = 0.002)., Conclusions: The current study findings suggest that ivabradine treatment is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF rehospitalization within 1 year among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF in real-world populations., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Over recent years, new evolution in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) contributes to clinical benefits in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The additional medical expenditure may be a concern due to the current financial constraint. This study aimed to investigate the medical costs and clinical effectiveness of contemporary GDMT in recently hospitalized HFrEF patients., Methods: Acutely decompensated hospitalized HFrEF patients from two multicenter cohorts of different periods were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline characteristics. Annual medication costs, risks of mortality, and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) were compared., Results: Following 1:2 propensity score matching, there were 426 patients from the 2017-2018 cohort using sacubitril/valsartan, while 852 patients from 2013 to 2014 did not use so at discharge. Baseline characteristics were similar, whereas the sacubitril/valsartan users were more likely to receive beta-blockers, ivabradine and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists at discharge (79.3% vs 60.4%, 23.2% vs 0%, and 64.1% vs 49.8%, p < 0.001). The 2017-2018 cohort produced more medication costs by 1277 United States dollar (USD) per person per year, while it resulted in lower rates of HFH and all-cause mortality (10.3 vs 20.3 and 48.8 vs 79.9 per 100 person-year, p < 0.001). Costs of preventing a mortality event and a HFH event with contemporary treatments were 15 758 USD (95% confidence interval [CI] 10 436-29 244) and 5317 USD (95% CI 3388-10 098), respectively., Conclusion: The higher adoption of GDMT was associated with greater medical expenses but better clinical outcomes in recently decompensated HFrEF patients., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the subject matter or materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2021, the Chinese Medical Association.)

Background: Treating heavily calcified lesions is a challenge and is associated with high re-stenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Before stent implantation, lesions must be adequately prepared using rotational atherectomy (RA), which has shown favorable results. The study aims to report our hospital's clinical outcomes when using rotational atherectomy on complex and heavily calcified coronary lesions with a single-burr strategy., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 58 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions with RA at our center between December 2006 and April 2017. Data on immediate post-procedural events and major adverse cardiovascular events were collected during follow-up, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, TLR, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stroke., Results: Of the 58 patients and 90 lesions treated over 10 years, 88 lesions (97.8%) used only one burr. The intervention procedure success rate was 100%. During a mean follow-up of 41.2 months, 6 patients experienced acute coronary syndrome, 12 required TLR, 2 needed TVR, and 6 died due to a cardiovascular event. We divided lesions into 5 categories. The prevalence of lesions and the burr size most commonly used were: category 1 (ostial lesion, 8.9%, 1.75 mm), category 2 (focal lesion, 20%, 1.75 mm), category 3 (intermediate lesion, 13.3%, 1.5 mm), category 4a (long, looser lesion, 26.7%, 1.5 mm), and category 4b (long, rigid lesion, 31.1%, 1.25 mm)., Conclusions: Rather than a routine step-by-step strategy for RA, this study shows convincing evidence supporting the use of this device to treat complex calcified coronary lesions using a single-burr strategy.