Heart Rate at Rest and Incident Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Diastolic Dysfunction.

Diastolic dysfunction (DD) is associated with incident atrial fibrillation (AF). The influence of heart rate at rest (RHR) on incident AF in patients with DD has not been investigated. The goal of this study is to assess the influence of RHR on incident AF in patients with DD. Patients from a large health system with no previous history of AF, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, and documented DD on echocardiography were divided into quartiles (<66, 66 to 76, 77 to 91, >91 beats per minute) based on RHR. Incident AF was estimated using AF hospitalization during follow-up. Hazard ratios (HR) for AF hospitalization and all-cause death were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 19,046 patients were analyzed. Over a median follow-up of 42.2 months, 742 (3.9%) patients were hospitalized for AF. Both slower and faster RHR were associated with increased risk of AF hospitalization (HR 1.40, confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 1.71, p = 0.001, HR 1.23, CI 0.99 to 1.53, p = 0.06 and HR 1.72, CI 1.38 to 2.14, p <0.001, for quartiles 1, 2, and 4, respectively), suggesting a J-shaped relation. Progressive increase in all-cause death was noted with faster RHR (HR1.19 per quartile increase, CI 1.16 to 1.22, p <0.001). These results persisted after adjustment for age, cardiovascular co-morbidities, grade of DD, and ß-blocker use. In conclusion, this large, real-world analysis indicates increased risk of incident AF with slower and faster RHR in patients with DD. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the potential of RHR modification to mitigate the risk of incident AF.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiac Electrophysiology Training: A Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a significant decrease in volume of electrophysiology (EP) procedures. There has been concern that trainees may not achieve the procedural numbers required to graduate as independent electrophysiologists within the usual timeline. We sought to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the percentage of clinical cardiac EP (CCEP) fellows in jeopardy of not meeting procedural volume requirements and overall sentiments regarding preparedness of fellows for independent practice. METHODS: We surveyed CCEP fellows and program directors about baseline procedural volumes, curriculum changes due to the pandemic, and attitudes about preparedness for board examinations and independent practice. RESULTS: Ninety-nine fellows and 27 program directors responded to the survey. Ninety-eight percent of responding fellows reported a decrease in procedural volume as a result of the pandemic. Program directors reported an overall decrease in annual number of ablations and device procedures performed by each fellow during the 2019-2020 academic year compared to the preceding year. Despite this, a minority of fellows and program directors reported concerns about meeting Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education procedural requirements for devices (9% and 4%, respectively) and ablation (19% and 9%) or preparedness for independent practice after a 2-year fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a decrease in procedural volume for CCEP trainees, but the majority of fellows and program directors do not anticipate major barriers to timely graduation. This may change with COVID-19 resurgence and further interruptions in training.