Aims : Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a highly prevalent disease and has been repeatedly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the extent of such association is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic stroke (IS), atrial fibrillation (AF), and heart failure (HF) in NAFLD patients. Methods and results : According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, from inception to 6 March 2021, and included all studies reporting the incidence of MI, IS, AF, and HF in patients with and without NAFLD. Random-effect fmodels were used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and 95% prediction intervals (PI); subgroup analyses, meta-regressions, and sensitivity analyses were additionally performed. Among 3254 records retrieved from literature, 20 studies were included. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease was associated with an increased risk of MI (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.39–1.99, 95% PI: 0.84–3.30), IS (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.29–1.55, 95% PI 1.03–1.93), AF (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.18–1.37, 95% PI: 1.07–1.52), and HF (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.43–1.84, 95% CI: 1.04–2.51). We identified significant subgroup differences according to geographical location, study design, NAFLD definition, and risk of bias; meta-regressions identified mean age, male sex, and study-level characteristics as potential moderators of the risk of MI and IS. Conclusions : Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease was associated with increased risk of MI, IS, AF, and HF. Age, sex, and study characteristics may moderate the strength of this association. Further studies are required to evaluate specific cardiovascular prevention strategies in patients with NAFLD.

Background: In patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular complications are common and associated with poor prognosis. Among these, an association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and COVID-19 has been described; however, the extent of this relationship is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the epidemiology of AF in COVID-19 patients and its impact on all-cause mortality. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed and reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol for this study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021227950). PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for relevant studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Overall, 31 studies were included in the analysis, with a total number of 187,716 COVID-19 patients. The prevalence of AF was found to be as high as 8% of patients with COVID-19 (95% CI: 6.3–10.2%, 95% prediction intervals (PI): 2.0–27.1%), with a high degree of heterogeneity between studies; a multiple meta-regression model including geographical location, age, hypertension, and diabetes showed that these factors accounted for more than a third of the heterogeneity. AF COVID-19 patients were less likely to be female but more likely older, hypertensive, and with a critical status than those without AF. Patients with AF showed a significant increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 3.97, 95% CI: 2.76–5.71), with a high degree of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis focusing on new-onset AF showed the consistency of these results. Conclusions: Among COVID-19 patients, AF is found in 8% of patients. AF COVID-19 patients are older, more hypertensive, and more likely to have a critical status. In COVID-19 patients, AF is associated with a 4-fold higher risk of death. Further studies are needed to define the best treatment strategies to improve the prognosis of AF COVID-19 patients.

Background: Clinical complexity, as the interaction between ageing, frailty, multimorbidity and polypharmacy, is an increasing concern in patients with AF. There remains uncertainty regarding how combinations of comorbidities influence management and prognosis of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to identify phenotypes of AF patients according to comorbidities and to assess associations between comorbidity patterns, drug use and risk of major outcomes. Methods: From the prospective GLORIA-AF Registry, we performed a latent class analysis based on 18 diseases, encompassing cardiovascular, metabolic, respiratory and other conditions; we then analysed the association between phenotypes of patients and (i) treatments received and (ii) the risk of major outcomes. Primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary exploratory outcomes were also analysed. Results: 32,560 AF patients (mean age 70.0 ± 10.5 years, 45.4% females) were included. We identified 6 phenotypes: (i) low complexity (39.2% of patients); (ii) cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (28.2%); (iii) atherosclerotic (10.2%); (iv) thromboembolic (8.1%); (v) cardiometabolic (7.6%) and (vi) high complexity (6.6%). Higher use of oral anticoagulants was found in more complex groups, with highest magnitude observed for the cardiometabolic and high complexity phenotypes (odds ratio and 95% confidence interval CI): 1.76 [1.49–2.09] and 1.57 [1.35–1.81], respectively); similar results were observed for beta-blockers and verapamil or diltiazem. We found higher risk of the primary outcome in all phenotypes, except the CV risk factor one, with highest risk observed for the cardiometabolic and high complexity groups (hazard ratio and 95%CI: 1.37 [1.13–1.67] and 1.47 [1.24–1.75], respectively). Conclusions: Comorbidities influence management and long-term prognosis of patients with AF. Patients with complex phenotypes may require comprehensive and holistic approaches to improve their prognosis.

The DOAC score has been recently proposed for bleeding risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). To compare the performance of HAS-BLED and DOAC score in predicting major bleeding events in a contemporary cohort of European AF patients treated with DOAC. We included patients derived from a prospective observational registry of European AF patients. HAS-BLED and DOAC scores were calculated as per the original schemes. Our primary endpoint was major bleeding events. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the predictive ability of the scores. A total of 2834 AF patients (median age [IQR] 69 [62-77] years; 39.6 % female) treated with DOAC were included in the analysis. According to the HAS-BLED score, 577 patients (20.4 %) were categorized as very low risk of bleeding, as compared to 1276 (45.0 %) according to DOAC score. A total of 55 major bleeding events occurred with an overall incidence of 1.04 per 100 patient-years. Both scores showed only a modest ability for the prediction of bleeding events (HAS-BLED area under the curve [AUC], 0.65, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.70; DOAC score AUC 0.62, 95 % CI 0.59-0.71, p for difference = 0.332]. At calibration analysis, the DOAC score showed modest calibration, especially for patients at high risk, when compared to HAS-BLED. In a contemporary cohort of DOAC-treated AF patients, both HAS-BLED and DOAC scores only modestly predicted the occurrence of major bleeding events. Our results do not support the preferential use of DOAC score over HAS-BLED.

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is a common complication in patients with sepsis, although its prevalence and impact on outcomes are still unclear. We aim to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of NOAF in patients with sepsis, and its impact on in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched on 26 December 2021. Studies reporting on the prevalence of NOAF and/or its impact on in-hospital mortality or ICU mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock were included. The pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, as well as the risk ratios (RR), 95%CI and 95% prediction intervals (PI) for outcomes. Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed to account for heterogeneity. Results: Among 4988 records retrieved from the literature search, 22 articles were included. Across 207,847 patients with sepsis, NOAF was found in 13.5% (95%CI: 8.9–20.1%), with high heterogeneity between studies; significant subgroup differences were observed, according to the geographical location, study design and sample size of the included studies. A multivariable meta-regression model showed that sample size and geographical location account for most of the heterogeneity. NOAF patients showed an increased risk of both in-hospital mortality (RR: 1.69, 95%CI: 1.47–1.96, 95%PI: 1.15–2.50) and ICU mortality (RR: 2.12, 95%CI: 1.86–2.43, 95%PI: 1.71–2.63), with moderate to no heterogeneity between the included studies. Conclusions: NOAF is a common complication during sepsis, being present in one out of seven individuals. Patients with NOAF are at a higher risk of adverse events during sepsis, and may need specific therapeutical interventions.