Milford–Beland, Sarah

Background: Novel therapies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) are emerging. However, data on use and outcomes of these agents in the community are limited, particularly in patients newly diagnosed with AF or recently transitioned to a novel anticoagulant. Methods: Phase II of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF II) is a multicenter, national, AF registry. We are enrolling 15,000 patients with new-onset AF, or those with known AF recently-transitioned to a novel anticoagulant. The primary objective is to evaluate the safety of novel anticoagulants, with specific focus on use, transitions, and management around invasive procedures and bleeding events. An adaptive design is used to ensure diversity of enrollment across geographic, provider, and treatment groups. The primary outcomes are major bleeding and thromboembolic events. Results: Of 1,011 patients in ORBIT-AF II, the median age was 73, 44% were female, 23% had a history of heart failure, 34% had a prior MI, and 11% had a prior stroke/TIA. The mean CHADS2 score was 2. Overall, 76% had AF new-onset, and a range of anticoagulant strategies was used in these patients (Figure). Among the 24% with known AF transitioned to a novel agent, 66% received rivaroxaban, versus 8.1% dabigatran, and 26% apixaban. Compared with patients having new-onset AF, those with known AF recently-transitioned to a novel anticoagulant were slightly older (median age 74 vs. 72), had higher CHADS2 scores (>2 in 70% vs. 62%), but less severe kidney disease (0 vs. 1.7%). Conclusions: Patients with new-onset AF are frequently treated with novel anticoagulants and these patients have lower risk scores than those with known AF transitioned to a novel drug. These data will provide insights into clinical management and patient centered outcomes among those treated with novel anticoagulants in real world practice settings.

Background— We sought to validate the recently developed Mayo Clinic Risk Score model for in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention using an independent data set. The Mayo Clinic Risk Score has 7 simple clinical and noninvasive variables, available before coronary angiography, for prediction of in-hospital mortality. External validation using an independent data set would support broader applicability of the model. Methods and Results— In-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention on 309 351 patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry admitted from January 1, 2004, to March, 30, 2006, was studied. Using the Mayo Clinic Risk Score equation, we assigned predicted probabilities of death to each patient. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve was 0.884, indicating excellent discrimination overall as well as among subgroups, including gender, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, low ejection fraction, different age groups, and multivessel disease. Ninety-seven percent of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention had a Mayo Clinic Risk Score <10, indicating low to intermediate risk. The Mayo Clinic Risk Score model initially slightly underpredicted event rates when applied in National Cardiovascular Data Registry data (observed 1.23% versus predicted 1.10%), but this underprediction was corrected after recalibration. The recalibrated risk score discriminated (c index=0.885) and calibrated well in an National Cardiovascular Data Registry validation data set consisting of procedures performed between April 1, 2006, and March 30, 2007. Conclusions— Seven variables can be combined into a convenient risk scoring system before coronary angiography is performed to predict in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. This model may be useful for providing patients with individualized, evidence-based estimates of procedural risk as part of the informed consent process before percutaneous coronary intervention.