Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Cardiology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
JACC Heart Fail. 2017 Aug;5(8):565-574. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.05.001. Epub 2017 Jul 12.
OBJECTIVES: The study sought to assess the independent risk factors for, consequences of, and outcomes with atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with sinus rhythm (SR) in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) versus HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) versus HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: AF is common in HF, but most data are from HFrEF. The importance of AF in HFpEF and HFmrEF is less well known. METHODS: In patients from 2000 to 2012 in the SwedeHF (Swedish Heart Failure Registry) registry, enriched with patient-level data from national health care registries, the authors assessed prevalence of, associations with, and prognostic impact of AF in HFpEF versus HFmrEF versus HFrEF. RESULTS: Of 41,446 patients, 23% had HFpEF, 22% had HFmrEF, and 55% had HFrEF. The prevalence of AF was 65%, 60%, and 53% in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF, respectively. Independent associations with AF were similar in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF and included greater age, male, duration of HF, prior myocardial infarction, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). The adjusted hazard ratios for AF versus SR in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF were the following: for death, 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.21), 1.22 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.33), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.23); for HF hospitalization or death, 1.17 (95% CI: 1.09 to 1.26), 1.29 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.40), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.20); and for stroke or TIA or death, 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.25), 1.23 (95% CI: 1.13 to 1.34), and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.14 to 1.26). CONCLUSIONS: AF was progressively more common with increasing ejection fraction, but was associated with similar clinical characteristics in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF. AF was associated with similarly increased risk of death, HF hospitalization, and stroke or TIA in all ejection fraction groups. In contrast, AF and SR populations were considerably different regarding associated patient characteristics and outcomes.
目的:本研究旨在评估与窦性心律(SR)相比,射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)、射血分数中间范围的心力衰竭(HFmrEF)和射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)中,房颤(AF)的独立危险因素、后果和结局。
背景:AF 在心力衰竭中很常见,但大多数数据来自 HFrEF。AF 在 HFpEF 和 HFmrEF 中的重要性尚不清楚。
方法:在 2000 年至 2012 年间来自瑞典心力衰竭登记处(SwedeHF)的患者中,通过来自国家卫生保健登记处的患者水平数据进行丰富,作者评估了 AF 在 HFpEF 与 HFmrEF 与 HFrEF 中的患病率、与 AF 的相关性以及 AF 的预后影响。
结果:在 41446 名患者中,23%患有 HFpEF,22%患有 HFmrEF,55%患有 HFrEF。HFpEF、HFmrEF 和 HFrEF 中 AF 的患病率分别为 65%、60%和 53%。AF 的独立相关因素在 HFpEF、HFmrEF 和 HFrEF 中相似,包括年龄较大、男性、心力衰竭持续时间、既往心肌梗死和既往卒中和短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)。HFpEF、HFmrEF 和 HFrEF 中 AF 与 SR 相比的调整后的危险比如下:死亡的危险比为 1.11(95%置信区间 [CI]:1.02 至 1.21)、1.22(95% CI:1.12 至 1.33)和 1.17(95% CI:1.11 至 1.23);HF 住院或死亡的危险比为 1.17(95% CI:1.09 至 1.26)、1.29(95% CI:1.20 至 1.40)和 1.15(95% CI:1.10 至 1.20);卒中和 TIA 或死亡的危险比为 1.15(95% CI:1.07 至 1.25)、1.23(95% CI:1.13 至 1.34)和 1.19(95% CI:1.14 至 1.26)。
结论:随着射血分数的增加,AF 越来越常见,但在 HFpEF、HFmrEF 和 HFrEF 中与相似的临床特征相关。AF 与所有射血分数组中死亡、HF 住院和卒中和 TIA 的风险增加相似。相比之下,AF 和 SR 人群在相关患者特征和结局方面存在显著差异。
JACC Heart Fail. 2017-7-12
Eur J Heart Fail. 2017-9-25
JACC Heart Fail. 2019-3-6
Heart Rhythm O2. 2025-4-24
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025-7-10
Korean J Intern Med. 2025-7
J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2025-6-16
Eur Heart J Suppl. 2025-5-15