Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2025
Estimating Bilateral Atrial Function by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Feature Tracking in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: July 20, 2022
Is atrial fibrillation in HFpEF a distinct phenotype? Insights from multiparametric MRI and circulating biomarkers
Abhishek Dattani1, Emer M Brady2, Prathap Kanagala3
1Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester and the National Institute for Health Research Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK. ad530@leicester.ac.uk.
Background:
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently co-exist. There is a limited understanding on whether this coexistence is associated with distinct alterations in myocardial remodelling and mechanics. We aimed to determine if patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represent a distinct phenotype.
Methods:
In this secondary analysis of adults with HFpEF (NCT03050593), participants were comprehensively phenotyped with stress cardiac MRI, echocardiography and plasma fibroinflammatory biomarkers, and were followed for the composite endpoint (HF hospitalisation or death) at a median of 8.5 years. Those with AF were compared to sinus rhythm (SR) and unsupervised cluster analysis was performed to explore possible phenotypes.
Results:
136 subjects were included (SR = 75, AF = 61). The AF group was older (76 ± 8 vs. 70 ± 10 years) with less diabetes (36% vs. 61%) compared to the SR group and had higher left atrial (LA) volumes (61 ± 30 vs. 39 ± 15 mL/m2, p < 0.001), lower LA ejection fraction (EF) (31 ± 15 vs. 51 ± 12%, p < 0.001), worse left ventricular (LV) systolic function (LVEF 63 ± 8 vs. 68 ± 8%, p = 0.002; global longitudinal strain 13.6 ± 2.9 vs. 14.7 ± 2.4%, p = 0.003) but higher LV peak early diastolic strain rates (0.73 ± 0.28 vs. 0.53 ± 0.17 1/s, p < 0.001). The AF group had higher levels of syndecan-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2, proBNP, angiopoietin-2 and pentraxin-3, but lower level of interleukin-8. No difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the groups. Three distinct clusters were identified with the poorest outcomes (Log-rank p = 0.029) in cluster 2 (hypertensive and fibroinflammatory) which had equal representation of SR and AF.
Conclusions:
Presence of AF in HFpEF is associated with cardiac structural and functional changes together with altered expression of several fibro-inflammatory biomarkers. Distinct phenotypes exist in HFpEF which may have differing clinical outcomes.
