RFA resulted in long-term restoration of sinus rhythm in only 50% of patients. RFA did not improve CMR LVEF compared with a strategy of rate control. RFA did improve radionuclide LVEF but did not improve other secondary outcomes and was associated with a significant rate of serious complications.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to address the increasing demand for heart transplantation within the United Kingdom (UK), we established a clinical program of heart transplantation from donation after circulatory-determined death (DCD) donors in 2015. After 5 years, we report the clinical early outcomes and impact of the program. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective, matched, observational cohort study comparing outcomes of hearts transplanted from DCD donors from March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2020 with those from matched donation after brain death (DBD) donors at Royal Papworth Hospital (RPH) (Cambridge, UK). DCD hearts were either retrieved using thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion or the direct procurement and perfusion technique. All DBD hearts were procured using standard cold static storage. The primary outcomes were recipient 30-day and 1-year survival. RESULTS: During the 5-year study, DCD heart donation increased overall heart transplant activity by 48% (79 for DCD and 164 for DBD). There was no difference in survival at 30 days (97% for DCD vs 99% for DBD, p = 1.00) or 1 year (91% for DCD vs 89% for DBD, p = 0.72). There was no difference in the length of stay in the intensive care unit (7 for DCD vs 6 for DBD days, p = 0.24) or in the hospital (24 for DCD vs 25 for DBD days, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: DCD heart donation increased overall heart transplant activity at RPH by 48%, with no difference in 30-day or 1-year survival in comparison with conventional DBD heart transplantations.

OBJECTIVEDiabetes and heart failure commonly coexist, and prior studies have suggested better outcomes with metformin than other antidiabetic agents. We designed this study to determine whether this association reflects a beneficial effect of metformin or a harmful effect of other agents.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe performed a case-control study nested within the U.K. General Practice Research Database cohort in which diagnoses were assigned by each patient's primary care physician. Case subjects were patients 35 years or older, newly diagnosed with both heart failure and diabetes after January 1988, and who died prior to October 2007. Control subjects were matched to case subjects based on age, sex, clinic site, calendar year, and duration of follow-up. Analyses were adjusted for comorbidities, A1C, renal function, and BMI.RESULTSThe duration of concurrent diabetes and heart failure was 2.8 years (SD 2.6) in our 1,633 case subjects and 1,633 control subjects (mean age 78 years, 53% male). Compared with patients who were not exposed to antidiabetic drugs, the current use of metformin monotherapy (adjusted odds ratio 0.65 [0.48–0.87]) or metformin with or without other agents (0.72 [0.59–0.90]) was associated with lower mortality; however, use of other antidiabetic drugs or insulin was not associated with all-cause mortality. Conversely, the use of ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (0.55 [0.45–0.68]) and β-blockers (0.76 [0.61–0.95]) were associated with reduced mortality.CONCLUSIONSOur results confirm the benefits of trial-proven anti-failure therapies in patients with diabetes and support the use of metformin-based strategies to lower glucose.

Objective To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sources Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.Study selection Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.Methods Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.Results In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).Conclusion Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.