Key result
Strict AF rate control in obesity or diabetes is linked to worse outcomes via aggravated filling pressures.
Why the study?
The coexistence of obesity and diabetes complicates therapeutic options for rate control in atrial fibrillation, particularly given associated ventricular remodeling and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Does intensive rate control worsen outcomes compared to lenient rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and obesity or type 2 diabetes?
Does intensive rate control worsen outcomes compared to lenient rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and obesity or type 2 diabetes?
Intensive rate control in AF patients with obesity or diabetes may be harmful due to underlying HFpEF and cardiac fibrosis, suggesting lenient rate control is preferable.
May favor lenient over strict rate control in AF with obesity or diabetes; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with obesity and diabetes; the arrhythmia (if long-standing) is typically managed by rate control and anticoagulation. However, the coexistence of these two metabolic disorders complicates therapeutic options for rate control. The likely pathogenesis of AF in these patients is an expansion of epicardial adipose tissue whose inflammation is transmitted to the left atrium causing electromechanical remodeling. However, this same process is also transmitted to the left ventricle (LV), impairing its distensibility and its ability to tolerate volume, leading to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Unfortunately, the latter diagnosis (although commonly present in patients with AF and a coexistent metabolic disorder) is often ignored. To achieve rate control, physicians prescribe intensive treatment with atrioventricular (AV) nodal-blocking drugs, often at doses that are titrated to blunt exercise as well as resting heart rate responses. However, strict rate control (target rate, <80/min) is associated with somewhat worse outcomes than lenient rate control (target rate, <110/min). Furthermore, any rate slowing that facilitates diastolic filling may aggravate filling pressures that are already disproportionately increased because the LV is stiff and overfilled as a result of cardiac inflammation. Rate slowing in AF with beta blockers may not achieve the benefit expected from the blockade of adrenergically mediated cardiotoxicity, and some AV nodal-blocking drugs (digoxin and dronedarone) can increase the risk of death in patients with AF. Finally, cardiac fibrosis in obesity and diabetes may affect the conduction system, which can predispose to serious bradyarrhythmias if patients are prescribed AV nodal-blocking drugs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milton Packer (2019) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation with obesity or type 2 diabetes. Strict rate control (AV nodal-blocking drugs) vs. Lenient rate control was evaluated. Strict rate control (<80/min) in patients with atrial fibrillation and obesity or diabetes is associated with worse outcomes than lenient rate control (<110/min) due to aggravated filling pressures.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: