Background Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease. MethodsGBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk-outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk-outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk-outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each agesex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden. Findings The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobac...

Summary Background Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Methods Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0–100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target—1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023—we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Findings Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2–47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7–61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9–3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast,...

In HF patients, including those with CIEDs, home-based telemonitored NW is safe and effective. NW was well accepted by patients and adherence was high and promising.

Atrial remodelling in MS is characterized by LA enlargement, loss of myocardium, and scarring associated with widespread and site-specific conduction abnormalities and no change or an increase in ERP. These abnormalities were associated with a heightened inducibility of AF.

Background: Even on optimal therapy, many patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation experience cardiovascular complications. Additional treatments are needed to reduce these events, especially in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: This prespecified subanalysis of the randomized EAST - AFNET 4 trial assessed the effect of systematic, early rhythm control therapy (ERC; using antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation) compared to usual care (UC, allowing rhythm control therapy to improve symptoms) on the two primary outcomes of the trial and on selected secondary outcomes in patients with heart failure, defined as heart failure symptoms NYHA II-III or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <50%. Results: This analysis included 798 patients (300 (37.6%) female, median age 71.0 [64.0, 76.0] years, 785 with known LVEF). The majority of patients (n=442) had HFpEF (LVEF≥50%; mean LVEF 61% ± 6.3%), the others had heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (n=211; LVEF40-49%; mean LVEF 44% ± 2.9%) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=132; LVEF<40%; mean LVEF 31% ± 5.5%). Over the 5.1-year median follow-up, the composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure or for acute coronary syndrome occurred less often in patients randomized to ERC (94/396; 5.7 per 100 patient-years) compared with patients randomized to UC (130/402; 7.9 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0.74 [0.56-0.97], p=0.03), not altered by heart failure status (interaction p-value=0.63). The primary safety outcome (death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy) occurred in 71/396 (17.9%) heart failure patients randomized to ERC and in 87/402 (21.6%) heart failure patients randomized to UC (hazard ratio 0.85 [0.62-1.17], p=0.33). LV ejection fraction improved in both groups (LVEF change at two years: ERC 5.3%±11.6%, UC 4.9%±11.6%, p=0.43). ERC also improved the composite outcome of death or hospitalization for worsening of heart failure. Conclusions: Rhythm control therapy conveys clinical benefit when initiated within one year of diagnosing atrial fibrillation in patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: Unique Identifiers: ISRCTN04708680, NCT01288352, EudraCT2010-021258-20, Study web site www.easttrial.org; URLs: www.controlled-trials.com; https://clinicaltrials.gov; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu