Echocardiography is essential for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but current methods are time consuming and lack any evidence of reproducibility.
Purpose
To compare conventional averaging of consecutive beats with an index beat approach, where systolic and diastolic measurements are taken once after two prior beats with a similar RR interval (not more than 60 ms difference).
Methods
Transthoracic echocardiography was performed using a standardized and blinded protocol in patients enrolled into the RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent AF randomised controlled trial (RATE-AF; NCT02391337). AF was confirmed in all patients with a preceding 12-lead ECG. A minimum of 30-beat loops were recorded. Left ventricular function was determined using the recommended averaging of 5 and 10 beats and using the index beat method, with observers blinded to clinical details. Complete loops were used to calculate the within-beat coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for Simpson's biplane left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS) and filling pressure (E/e').
Results
160 patients (median age 75 years (IQR 69-82); 46% female) were included, with median heart rate 100 beats/min (IQR 86-112). For LVEF, the index beat had the lowest CV of 32% compared to 51% for 5 consecutive beats and 53% for 10 consecutive beats (p<0.001). The index beat also had the lowest CV for GLS (26% versus 43% and 42%; p<0.001) and E/e' (25% versus 41% and 41%; p<0.001; see Figure for ICC comparison). Intra-operator reproducibility, assessed by the same operator from two different recordings in 50 patients, was superior for the index beat with GLS bias -0.5 and narrow limits of agreement (-3.6 to 2.6), compared to -1.0 for 10 consecutive beats (-4.0 to 2.0). For inter-operator variability, assessed in 18 random patients, the index beat also showed the smallest bias with narrow confidence intervals (CI). Using a single index beat did not impact on the validity of LVEF, GLS or E/e' measurement when correlated with natriuretic peptides. Index beat analysis substantially shortened analysis time; 35 seconds (95% CI 35 to 39 seconds) for measuring E/e' with the index beat versus 98 seconds (95% CI 92 to 104 seconds) for 10 consecutive beats (see Figure 1).
Conclusion
Index beat determination of left ventricular function improves reproducibility, saves time and does not compromise validity compared to conventional quantification in patients with heart failure and AF. After independent validation, the index beat method should be adopted into routine clinical practice.
There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure.
Objective
To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a β-blocker).
Design, Setting, and Participants
Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019.
Interventions
Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 μg/d; mean dose, 161 μg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d).
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting.
Results
Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, −1.1 to 3.8];P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, −2.0 to 5.1/min];P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6];P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92];P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group.
Conclusions and Relevance
Among patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points.
Abstract Aims The aim is to describe the rationale, design, delivery, and baseline characteristics of the Stroke prevention and rhythm control Treatment: Evaluation of an Educational programme of the European society of cardiology in a cluster-Randomized trial in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (STEEER-AF) trial. Methods and results STEEER-AF is a pragmatic trial designed to objectively and robustly determine whether guidelines are adhered to in routine practice and evaluate a targeted educational programme for healthcare professionals. Seventy centres were randomized in six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and UK; 2022–23). The STEEER-AF centres recruited 1732 patients with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF), with a mean age of 68.9 years (SD 11.7), CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.2 (SD 1.8), and 647 (37%) women. Eight hundred and forty-three patients (49%) were in AF at enrolment and 760 (44%) in sinus rhythm. Oral anticoagulant therapy was prescribed in 1543 patients (89%), with the majority receiving direct oral anticoagulants (1378; 89%). Previous cardioversion, antiarrhythmic drug therapy, or ablation was recorded in 836 patients (48.3%). Five hundred fifty-one patients (31.8%) were currently receiving an antiarrhythmic drug, and 446 (25.8%) were scheduled to receive a future cardioversion or ablation. The educational programme engaged 195 healthcare professionals across centres randomized to the intervention group, consisting of bespoke interactive online learning and reinforcement activities, supported by national expert trainers. Conclusion The STEEER-AF trial was successfully deployed across six European countries to investigate guideline adherence in real-world practice and evaluate if a structured educational programme for healthcare professionals can improve patient-level care. Clinical Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04396418.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major and increasing burden on health services. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digoxin versus beta-blockers for heart rate control in patients with permanent AF and symptoms of heart failure. RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) was a randomised, open-label, blinded, endpoint trial embedded in the UK National Health Service (NHS) to directly compare low-dose digoxin with beta-blockers (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02391337). A trial-based cost-utility analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective over 12 months. Resource use in primary and secondary healthcare services, medications and patient-reported quality of life were prospectively collected to estimate differences in costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RATE-AF randomised 160 patients with mean age of 76 (SD 8) years and 46% women, of which 149 patients (n=73 digoxin, n=76 beta blockers) had complete data and survived to 12-month follow-up. Treatment with digoxin was significantly less costly, with a mean saving of £530.41 per patient per year (95% CI -£848.06 to -£249.38, p=0.001). This was principally due to substantially lower rates of adverse events, with less primary and secondary healthcare utilisation compared with beta-blocker therapy. There was no significant difference in QALYs (0.013; 95% CI -0.033 to 0.052, p=0.56). At the £20 000 per-QALY willingness to pay threshold, the probability of digoxin being cost-effective compared with beta-blockers was 94%, with potential annual savings to the NHS of £102 million/year (95% CI £48 million to £164 million saving, p=0.001). Digoxin is a less costly option when compared with beta-blockers for control of heart rate in suitable patients with permanent AF, with larger cost-effectiveness studies warranted to advise on national and global policy-making. NCT02391337, EudraCT 2015-005043-13.
Abstract Aims To establish the extent and impact of symptoms in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the importance of different aspects of quality of life (QoL), and how we should assess wellbeing. Methods Focus groups of patients with symptomatic permanent AF in a trial of heart rate control; the RATE-AF trial randomised 160 patients aged ≥60 years with permanent AF and at least NYHA class II dyspnoea to either digoxin or beta-blockers. Patient and public representatives led the focus groups and performed all data acquisition and analysis, using thematic approaches to interpret patient views about QoL and its measurement. Results Substantial impairment of health-related QoL was noted in 160 trial patients, with impact on all domains apart from mental health. Eight women and 11 men aged 61–87 years participated in the focus groups. Common themes were a lack of information from healthcare professionals about AF, a lack of focus on QoL in consultations, and a sense of frustration, isolation and reduced confidence. There was marked variability in symptoms in individual patients, with some describing severe impact on activities of daily living, and profound interaction with comorbidities such as arthritis. Day-to-day variation in QoL and difficulty in attributing symptom burden to AF or other comorbidities led to challenges in questionnaire completion. Consensus was reached that collecting both general and AF-specific QoL would be useful in routine practice, along with participation in peer support, which was empowering for the patients. Conclusions The impact of comorbidities is poorly appreciated in the context of AF, with considerable variability in QoL that requires both generic and AF-specific assessment. Improvement in QoL should direct the appraisal, and reappraisal, of treatment decisions for patients with permanent AF.
The RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) trial was designed as a pragmatic, healthcare-embedded clinical trial to address the concerns of patients and improve quality of life. 1 With the main results recently published in JAMA, 2 RATE-AF has demonstrated how patient and public involvement (PPI) in trial design and management can provide new opportunities and generate a robust evidencebase to guide routine clinical management.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being utilized in healthcare. This article provides clinicians and researchers with a step-wise foundation for high-value AI that can be applied to a variety of different data modalities. The aim is to improve the transparency and application of AI methods, with the potential to benefit patients in routine cardiovascular care. Following a clear research hypothesis, an AI-based workflow begins with data selection and pre-processing prior to analysis, with the type of data (structured, semi-structured, or unstructured) determining what type of pre-processing steps and machine-learning algorithms are required. Algorithmic and data validation should be performed to ensure the robustness of the chosen methodology, followed by an objective evaluation of performance. Seven case studies are provided to highlight the wide variety of data modalities and clinical questions that can benefit from modern AI techniques, with a focus on applying them to cardiovascular disease management. Despite the growing use of AI, further education for healthcare workers, researchers, and the public are needed to aid understanding of how AI works and to close the existing gap in knowledge. In addition, issues regarding data access, sharing, and security must be addressed to ensure full engagement by patients and the public. The application of AI within healthcare provides an opportunity for clinicians to deliver a more personalized approach to medical care by accounting for confounders, interactions, and the rising prevalence of multi-morbidity.
Abstract Consumer-grade wearable technology has the potential to support clinical research and patient management. Here, we report results from the RATE-AF trial wearables study, which was designed to compare heart rate in older, multimorbid patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and heart failure who were randomized to treatment with either digoxin or beta-blockers. Heart rate ( n = 143,379,796) and physical activity ( n = 23,704,307) intervals were obtained from 53 participants (mean age 75.6 years (s.d. 8.4), 40% women) using a wrist-worn wearable linked to a smartphone for 20 weeks. Heart rates in participants treated with digoxin versus beta-blockers were not significantly different (regression coefficient 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) −2.82 to 5.27; P = 0.55); adjusted 0.66 (95% CI −3.45 to 4.77; P = 0.75)). No difference in heart rate was observed between the two groups of patients after accounting for physical activity ( P = 0.74) or patients with high activity levels (≥30,000 steps per week; P = 0.97). Using a convolutional neural network designed to account for missing data, we found that wearable device data could predict New York Heart Association functional class 5 months after baseline assessment similarly to standard clinical measures of electrocardiographic heart rate and 6-minute walk test (F1 score 0.56 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.70) versus 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.68); P = 0.88 for comparison). The results of this study indicate that digoxin and beta-blockers have equivalent effects on heart rate in atrial fibrillation at rest and on exertion, and suggest that dynamic monitoring of individuals with arrhythmia using wearable technology could be an alternative to in-person assessment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02391337 .
<b><i>Aims:</i></b> To establish the extent and impact of symptoms in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the importance of different aspects of quality of life (QoL), and how we should assess wellbeing. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Focus groups of patients with symptomatic permanent AF in a trial of heart rate control; the RATE-AF trial randomised 160 patients aged ≥60 years with permanent AF and at least NYHA class II dyspnoea to either digoxin or beta-blockers. Patient and public representatives led the focus groups and performed all data acquisition and analysis, using thematic approaches to interpret patient views about QoL and its measurement. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Substantial impairment of health-related QoL was noted in 160 trial patients, with impact on all domains apart from mental health. Eight women and 11 men aged 61–87 years participated in the focus groups. Common themes were a lack of information from healthcare professionals about AF, a lack of focus on QoL in consultations, and a sense of frustration, isolation, and reduced confidence. There was marked variability in symptoms in individual patients, with some describing severe impact on activities of daily living, and profound interaction with comorbidities such as arthritis. Day-to-day variation in QoL and difficulty in attributing symptom burden to AF or other comorbidities led to challenges in questionnaire completion. Consensus was reached that collecting both general and AF-specific QoL would be useful in routine practice, along with participation in peer support, which was empowering for the patients. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The impact of comorbidities is poorly appreciated in the context of AF, with considerable variability in QoL that requires both generic and AF-specific assessment. Improvement in QoL should direct the appraisal, and reappraisal, of treatment decisions for patients with permanent AF.
Objective To improve the echocardiographic assessment of heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by comparing conventional averaging of consecutive beats with an index-beat approach, whereby measurements are taken after two cycles with similar R-R interval. Methods Transthoracic echocardiography was performed using a standardised and blinded protocol in patients enrolled in the RATE-AF (RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation) randomised trial. We compared reproducibility of the index-beat and conventional consecutive-beat methods to calculate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS) and E/e’ (mitral E wave max/average diastolic tissue Doppler velocity), and assessed intraoperator/interoperator variability, time efficiency and validity against natriuretic peptides. Results 160 patients were included, 46% of whom were women, with a median age of 75 years (IQR 69–82) and a median heart rate of 100 beats per minute (IQR 86–112). The index-beat had the lowest within-beat coefficient of variation for LVEF (32%, vs 51% for 5 consecutive beats and 53% for 10 consecutive beats), GLS (26%, vs 43% and 42%) and E/e’ (25%, vs 41% and 41%). Intraoperator (n=50) and interoperator (n=18) reproducibility were both superior for index-beats and this method was quicker to perform (p<0.001): 35.4 s to measure E/e’ (95% CI 33.1 to 37.8) compared with 44.7 s for 5-beat (95% CI 41.8 to 47.5) and 98.1 s for 10-beat (95% CI 91.7 to 104.4) analyses. Using a single index-beat did not compromise the association of LVEF, GLS or E/e’ with natriuretic peptide levels. Conclusions Compared with averaging of multiple beats in patients with AF, the index-beat approach improves reproducibility and saves time without a negative impact on validity, potentially improving the diagnosis and classification of heart failure in patients with AF.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
