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]

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]

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]

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]