Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

The importance of interactions between atrial fibrillation and heart failure

Muhammad A Khan, Duwarakan K Satchithananda and Mamas A Mamas
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.16-3-272
Clin Med June 2016
Muhammad A Khan
AManchester Heart Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester, UK
Roles: clinical fellow in heart failure and imaging
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Duwarakan K Satchithananda
BRoyal Stoke Hospital, University Hospitals North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Roles: consultant cardiologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mamas A Mamas
CRoyal Stoke Hospital, University Hospitals North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Roles: professor of cardiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are among the commonest cardiovascular conditions encountered in clinical practice and frequently coexist. Over the last decade, they have evolved into global cardiovascular epidemics. This, in turn, has huge clinical and economic implications. There is ample evidence that AF and HF have a mutually deleterious effect on each other. AF is not only a marker of HF severity but also affects HF prognosis independently. This article presents the close pathophysiological relationship between AF and HF and the adverse prognostic consequences of this bidirectional interaction. The scope of various therapeutic modalities and their potential impacts are discussed briefly.

KEYWORDS
  • Atrial fibrillation
  • heart failure
  • pathophysiology
  • prognosis
  • thromboprophylaxis

Key points

  • Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have been recognised as global cardiovascular epidemics.

  • They frequently co-exist, are interdependent and have a mutually adverse prognostic impact.

  • Rate control remains the mainstay of therapy with rhythm control reserved for a specific group of patients.

  • Stroke prevention is one of the most important aspects of AF care in the HF population.

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are among the commonest cardiovascular conditions encountered in clinical practice and frequently coexist. Up to 40% of patients with HF either have, or go on to develop, AF and approximately 40% of patients with AF present with (or develop) HF.1 Heart failure predicts the development of AF and conversely the presence of AF predicts the development of HF. Both are increasingly prevalent phenotypic manifestations of a multitude of different primary or secondary cardiac pathologies (Fig 1).

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Interrelation between HF and AF demonstrating the causality of each and the mechanisms for one worsening the other. AF = atrial fibrillation; HR = heart failure. Adapted from Anter E, Jessup M, Callans DJ. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure: treatment considerations for a dual epidemic. Circulation 2009;119:2516–25.

The prevalence of HF and AF has steadily increased over the years. This is in part through an ageing population and development of more effective therapy that improves outcomes associated with other cardiovascular conditions (such as myocardial infarction). In Europe, HF has an estimated prevalence of 30 million with 1 in 5 lifetime odds of developing HF.2 Similarly, 2% of Europeans have AF, with a projected prevalence of 14–17 million by the year 2030.3 The lifetime risk of AF is 1 in 4 (as derived from community-based cohorts in Framingham and Rotterdam studies).

Interactions between HF and AF

Prognosis

The presence of AF is associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with HF.4 This adverse prognosis is observed in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF)) as well as those with preserved left ventricular function (ie HF with preserved LV systolic function (HFPEF)). For instance, the SOLVD (Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction) trial demonstrated that even in asymptomatic patients with an LV ejection fraction of <35%, mortality was 34% when AF was present and 24% when it was not. The mortality in new-onset AF (12%) was also greater than for persistent AF (7%).5 Sub-group analysis of the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) study revealed that AF has an independent and deleterious effect on long-term all-cause cardiovascular mortality in HF patients. The absolute mortality risk was highest in patients with LVEF <35%; however, those with HFPEF had the highest relative risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06–1.79) in contrast to HFREF (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04–1.43).6 Similarly, meta-analysis by Mamas et al (using data derived from 16 studies and incorporating over 50,000 patients) showed that AF had a negative impact on total HF mortality with an odds ratio of 1.40 (95% CI 1.32–1.48, P<0.0001) in randomised trials and 1.14 (95% CI 1.03–1.26, P<0.05) in observational studies. Again, this was applicable to HFREF as well as HFPEF patients.4

We have previously summarised scientific evidence showing the negative prognostic effect of AF in HF patients (Tables 1 and 2).7 However, it is not entirely clear whether AF per se is the cause of increased mortality or merely a marker of more advanced HF.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Prognostic impact of AF in HF: summary of randomised trials.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Prognostic impact of AF in HF: summary of observational studies

Symptoms of HF

AF is more likely to occur in patients with more severe HF symptoms (eg NYHA I, 10%; NYHA 4, 50%). Prolonged exposure to AF with a fast ventricular response also contributes to LV systolic dysfunction – a tachycardiomyopathy.

Stroke risk

AF confers a greater degree of stroke risk in HF patients as the presence of HF carries a weighting of 1 point in the CHADSVASC risk stratification tool for AF and stroke. The risk of stroke is equivalent both in HFREF and HFPEF alike at a rate of up to 4.4% per 100 patient years.8

Treatment of AF in patients with HF

Treatment algorithms for both are extensively discussed in guidelines elsewhere9 and are beyond the scope of this article. However, the main principles of the treatment of AF in patients with HF can be summarised as follows.

Rate or rhythm control

The commonest form of rate control is with AV nodal blocking agents such as beta blockers, rate-controlling calcium channel antagonists (provided LV systolic function is preserved) and digoxin.9 Management of both occurring together is extrapolated from trials in AF that contain between 20 and 30% of patients with HF and HF trials that contain between 10 and 30% of patients with AF.

However, the optimum target rate to achieve in AF is difficult to determine with any degree of precision. Current guidelines define adequate rate control in atrial fibrillation as maintenance of the ventricular rate response between 60 and 80 bpm at rest and between 90 and 115 bpm during moderate exercise.

Special considerations for AF ventricular rate control in HF include:

  • The optimum heart rate suggested in the AF-CHF trial (in which rate versus rhythm strategies were compared in HFREF patients) was 80 bpm at rest and less than 110 bpm with exertion. This trial also demonstrated no significant benefit in rhythm compared with rate control.11

  • Beta blockers are the most commonly indicated.9 It is unclear whether the beneficial prognostic effects of beta blockers in sinus rhythm in patients with HFREF are generalisable to similar patients with AF,10 but currently beta blockers remain the preferred rate-control agent in HFREF.

  • Digoxin is suggested in patients unable to tolerate beta blockers. This may include patients with acute decompensated HF in whom the negative inotropic effect of beta blockers may exacerbate congestion.

  • The role of cardiac glycosides in HF and AF has lately become controversial because of reports suggesting increased mortality in HF and AF patients on digoxin therapy.11 This evidence was based on observational studies and post hoc analysis and should therefore be viewed with these limitations in mind. So far, DIG trial is the only randomised controlled trial (RCT) in patients with HF and sinus rhythm but it did not present a direct comparison between digoxin and other rate-control agents. On the other hand, there is no RCT studying patients in AF with digoxin. Moreover, there is the confounding bias that physicians are likely to prescribe digoxin in patients who are more unwell and may have a higher overall mortality anyway. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to say that till we have more robust data available, digoxin should be used with caution in HF patients, keeping serum levels less than 1.2 ng/mL.12

By contrast, rhythm-control strategies (using anti-arrhythmic medications) have shown no benefit over rate control in terms of mortality, stroke prevention or hospitalisation. However, they can be reserved for patients who are intolerant to rate-control medications or remain symptomatic despite adequate rate control. A number of trials have looked at rate versus rhythm control. The Atrial Fibrillation in Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial prospectively randomised 1,376 HFREF patients to amiodarone or rate-control medication. The cohort was followed up for three years looking at all-cause mortality, stroke and HF admission. The difference in mortality in the two arms was not significant (27% and 25%, respectively). In addition, there was increased morbidity from torsades and bradycardia in the rhythm-control arm.13 Similarly, the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM)14 and Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (RACE)15 trials have demonstrated similar findings. The latter, however, were not exclusive to HF patients and arguably, were underrepresented by a younger patient cohort who may be more symptomatic as well as in an earlier phase of the disease and, thus, are likely to gain more from rhythm-control compared with a rate-control strategy. It follows, therefore, that rhythm control should be reserved for patients who are particularly symptomatic with AF despite adequate rate control.

Since medications used for rhythm control (eg class 1a, class 1c agents, dronedarone) all have an increased mortality in HFREF, any rhythm-control technique that obviates the need for antiarrhythmic agents offers a clear advantage. Pulmonary vein isolation by using various catheter ablation techniques has emerged as an encouraging option in this regard. Its role in HF has shown early promise, but remains to be defined16 particularly in terms of long-term prognosis. To date, a number of small trials have shown very promising results17,18 (as risks of the procedure were not increased – when comparing patients with impaired versus normal LV function – and LV systolic function improved during long-term follow-up) while larger randomised trials are underway.19,20 Depending upon the results, AF ablation may potentially become an important first-line option in patients with HF. Finally, surgical ablation techniques (such as Cox maze procedure) are available to patients undergoing cardiac surgery. They have been shown to be safe and effective, including in patients with HF.

Pacing strategies can also be employed in patients with both AF with a fast and slow ventricular response (bradycardia pacing with subsequent rate-control medications) and in patients with refractory AF with fast ventricular response (pacemaker implantation with subsequent AV node ablation). This ‘pace-and-ablate’ strategy, however, does not eliminate AF per se. Studies conducted so far are small, non-randomised and mostly from single centres. Results are promising but further larger trials are warranted.

Lastly, development of newer antiarrhythmic drugs such as selective atrial-specific ion-channel blockers (eg vernakalant) may offer an advantage over previously available ones but their role in HF population needs further studies.

Thromboprophylaxis

Patients with AF and HF have their risk of stroke and systemic embolism doubled compared with either condition alone.21 Hence, thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulants is of paramount importance and has been shown to be safe and effective.22 Warfarin is thrice as effective as aspirin and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are at least as good as warfarin. NOACs include inhibitors of either thrombin (dabigatran) or activated factor X (apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban). Results from major trials (RELY, ARISTOTLE, ENGAGE AF-TIMI48, ROCKET) have been encouraging.23 Dabigatran was the first NOAC introduced into clinical practice. Comparison with warfarin in the RELY trial shows that its dose of 110 mg twice daily is superior for bleeding but non-inferior for thromboembolic protection, whereas 150 mg twice daily is non-inferior for bleeding but superior for thromboembolic protection. Apixaban, on the other hand, has been shown to be superior to warfarin in efficacy and associated with less gastrointestinal, intracranial and other major bleeding. Other factor X inhibitors are non-inferior to warfarin and associated with less intracranial and other major bleeding but higher gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Rivaroxaban and edoxaban have the added advantage of being once daily as well. Importantly, several NOAC reversal agents are currently in development and idarucizumab (which is a fully humanised monoclonal antibody fragment) has recently received global approval as a specific reversal agent for dabigatran.24

Finally, a small number of patients are unable to receive oral anticoagulation because of drug intolerance or bleeding contraindications. Left atrial appendage occlusion devices (such as Watchman device) hold promise in such cases but need further experience and long-term data.25

Conclusions

The prevalence of both AF and HF are increasing and they frequently coexist. Concurrence of AF and HF is associated with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality than either condition alone. There is no clear-cut evidence so far that rhythm control is superior (in terms of long-term mortality) to rate control. Radiofrequency catheter intervention techniques are promising and it is hoped that larger trials (looking at outcome data) would help incorporate these into the standard management algorithm. Finally, novel oral anticoagulants are a welcome addition to the therapeutic armamentarium available to the clinician. Future insights into mechanisms of disease and development of new therapeutic modalities continues to hold promise in this challenging field.

  • © 2016 Royal College of Physicians

References

  1. ↵
    1. van Deursen VM
    , Urso R, Laroche C, et al. Co-morbidities in patients with heart failure: an analysis of the European Heart Failure Pilot Survey. Eur J Heart Fail 2014;16:103–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. McMurray JJ
    , Petrie MC, Murdoch DR, Davie AP. Clinical epidemiology of heart failure: public and private health burden. Eur Heart J 1998;19 Suppl P:P9–16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Zoni-Berisso M
    , Lercari F, Carazza T, Domenicucci S. Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: European perspective. Clin Epidemiol 2014;6:213–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Mamas MA
    , Caldwell JC, Chacko S, et al. A meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:676–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Dries DL
    , Exner DV, Gersh BJ, et al. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk for mortality and heart failure progression in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis of the SOLVD trials. Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:695–703.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Olsson LG
    , Swedberg K, Ducharme A, et al. Atrial fibrillation and risk of clinical events in chronic heart failure with and without left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results from the Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:1997–2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Khan MA
    , Ahmed F, Neyses L, Mamas MA. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: The sword of Damocles revisited. World J Cardiol 2013;5:215–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Sandhu RK
    , Hohnloser SH, Pfeffer MA, et al. Relationship between degree of left ventricular dysfunction, symptom status, and risk of embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Stroke 2015;46:667–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. McMurray JJ
    , Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail 2012;14:803–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kotecha D
    , Holmes J, Krum H, et al. Efficacy of beta blockers in patients with heart failure plus atrial fibrillation: an individual-patient data meta-analysis. Lancet 2014;384:2235–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Vamos M
    , Erath JW, Hohnloser SH. Digoxin-associated mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1831–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Collins JF
    , Egan D, Yusuf S, et al. Overview of the DIG trial. Control Clin Trials 2003;24(6 Suppl):269S–76S.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Roy D
    , Talajic M, Nattel S, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2667–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Wyse DG
    , Waldo AL, DiMarco JP, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1825–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Van Gelder IC
    , Hagens VE, Bosker HA, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1834–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Nedios S
    , Sommer P, Dagres N, et al. Long-term follow-up after atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function: the importance of rhythm and rate control. Heart Rhythm 2014;11:344–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hunter RJ
    , Berriman TJ, Diab I, et al. A randomized controlled trial of catheter ablation versus medical treatment of atrial fibrillation in heart failure (the CAMTAF trial). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2014;7:31–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Anselmino M
    , Matta M, D'Ascenzo F, et al. Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular systolic ­dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2014;7:1011–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Moreno J
    , Zamorano JL. The CABANA trial. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1908–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Marrouche NF
    , Brachmann J, Committee C-AS. Catheter ablation versus standard conventional treatment in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and atrial fibrillation (CASTLE-AF) - study design. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2009;32:987–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Wolf PA
    , Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation: a major contributor to stroke in the elderly. The Framingham Study. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1561–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Abraham JM
    , Connolly SJ. Atrial fibrillation in heart failure: stroke risk stratification and anticoagulation. Heart Fail Rev 2014;19:305–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hajhosseiny R
    , Sabir I, Lip GY. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: where are we now? Hosp Pract (1995) 2014;42:153–62.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Idarucizumab Burness CB.
    : First Global Approval. Drugs 2015;75:2155–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Reddy VY
    , Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312:1988–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
The importance of interactions between atrial fibrillation and heart failure
Muhammad A Khan, Duwarakan K Satchithananda, Mamas A Mamas
Clinical Medicine Jun 2016, 16 (3) 272-276; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-3-272

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The importance of interactions between atrial fibrillation and heart failure
Muhammad A Khan, Duwarakan K Satchithananda, Mamas A Mamas
Clinical Medicine Jun 2016, 16 (3) 272-276; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-3-272
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Key points
    • Introduction
    • Interactions between HF and AF
    • Treatment of AF in patients with HF
    • Conclusions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • CME Cardiology (100622): self-assessment questionnaire
  • The role of catheter ablation in the management of atrial fibrillation
Show more CME SECTION: Cardiology

Similar Articles

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians