Naccarelli, Gerald V.

Background: Studies evaluating the effects of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic therapy on outcomes have shown mixed results. In addition, guidelines recommend continuing oral anticoagulation (OAC) after ablation for those at risk of stroke, but real-world data are lacking. Methods: We evaluated outcomes including death, myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial bleeding, major bleeding, and hospitalization in patients undergoing AF ablation compared with a propensity score matched cohort of patients treated with anti-arrhythmic medications only in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation registries. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to evaluate the association between AF ablation and outcomes. We then evaluated patterns of treatment with OAC among AF ablation patients. Results: Among 21 595 patients, 1190 (6%) underwent de novo AF ablation. Our propensity score-matched cohort included 1087 patients who underwent AF ablation matched 1:1 with 1087 patients treated with antiarrhythmic medications only. There were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, and most other major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events. AF catheter ablation was associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization during follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05–1.46]), particularly in the first 3 months (the standard blanking period) after the procedure. Among those who underwent AF ablation with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women, 23% had OAC discontinued after ablation. Among those who discontinued OAC, the median time to discontinuation was 6.2 months. Conclusions: In this large US national registry, we found no difference in adjusted rates of cardiovascular or all-cause death between patients treated with AF catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic medications only. Notably, discontinuation of OAC after ablation remains relatively common despite guideline recommendations for continued stroke prevention therapy in patients at risk of stroke.

Background: The Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire has recently been validated to measure the impact of atrial fibrillation on quality of life, but a clinically important difference in AFEQT score has not been well defined. Methods and Results: To determine the clinically important difference in overall AFEQT (score range= 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) and selected subscales, we analyzed data in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry, a United States-based outpatient atrial fibrillation registry. AFEQT was assessed at baseline and 1 year in a subset of 1347 ORBIT-AF patients from 80 US sites participating in ORBIT-AF from June 2010 to August 2011. The mean change method was used to relate changes in 1-year AFEQT scores to clinically important changes in the physician assessment of European Heart Rhythm Association functional status (1 class improvement and separately 1 class deterioration). Clinically important differences and 95% CI corresponding to either a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement or deterioration were 5.4 (3.6–7.2) and −4.2 (−6.9 to −1.5) AFEQT points, respectively. Similarly, clinically important difference values were seen for a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement for the AFEQT subscales Activities of Daily Living and Symptoms: 5.1 (2.5–7.6) and 7.1 (5.3–9.0) AFEQT points, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the anchor of 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class change, changes in AFEQT score of + or −5 points are clinically important changes in patients’ health. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) incorporates patient and physician values and preferences into treatment selection. While multiple therapeutic options are available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), few studies have examined factors associated with SDM regarding choice of antithrombotic strategy. Methods: We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 sites participating in a substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II), an outpatient AF registry in the US. Patients were asked: “When choosing your blood thinner(s), who made this treatment decision?”, and SDM was defined as a response of “equally me and my healthcare provider (HCP)”, “mostly me” or “entirely me”, while no SDM was defined as a response of “mostly my HCP” or “entirely my HCP”. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated associations between 13 patient-level factors, self-reported understanding of treatment options, and SDM for antithrombotic therapy. Results: Most patients allowed their HCP to make the therapeutic decisions on antithrombotic strategy, with 246 (24.5%) reporting SDM. Patients reporting SDM were more often female (47.2% vs. 40.5%) and were more frequently insured by Medicare (40.2% vs. 34.5%) than patients reporting no SDM. Among patients taking warfarin, median time in therapeutic range was higher among patients reporting SDM than among those not reporting SDM. In multivariable models, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with lower odds of SDM while self-reported understanding of blood thinner options was associated with higher odds of SDM (Table). Conclusion: One in four patients in an outpatient AF registry reported that their current antithrombotic strategy was the result of a shared decision making process. Additional work is need to determine whether patient-reported SDM is associated with medication adherence and outcomes of therapy.

Objective The association with B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), disease progression and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been thoroughly investigated. Methods We evaluated the association between BNP levels and outcomes, including AF progression, composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular or neurological events (MACNE) and major bleeding, via pooled logistic regression and Cox frailty models in Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II registry. AF progression was defined as either paroxysmal becoming persistent or permanent, or persistent becoming permanent at any follow-up. Results Among 13 375 patients with AF, 2797 with BNP values at baseline (median age (IQR), 72.0 (63.0–80.0) years; 43.0% women; median BNP, 238 (102–502) ng/L; 42.3% prior heart failure) were included in the models evaluating the association between BNP levels and MACNE or major bleeding. Of these, 1282 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF at baseline were analysed in AF progression model. The likelihood of AF progression (adjusted OR, 1.11 for every 100 ng/mL; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19) and MACNE (adjusted HR, 1.11 for every doubling in BNP values; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22) increased with BNP concentration, while the elevated BNP values were not associated with increased risks of major bleeding. BNP values improved the risk prediction of AF progression and MACNE when added to conventional risk estimates. Conclusions BNP levels are associated with increased risk of AF progression and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AF. Further studies are required to assess whether biomarker-based risk stratification improves patient outcomes. Clinical trial registration NCT01701817 .

Background Chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) is a common comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation. The presence of CKD complicates drug selection for stroke prevention and rhythm control. Methods and Results Patients enrolled in ORBIT AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) with baseline renal function and follow‐up data were included (N=9019). CKD was defined as an estimated creatinine clearance <60 mL /min. Patient characteristics were compared by CKD status, and Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to examine the association between oral anticoagulant ( OAC ) use and outcomes and antiarrhythmic drug use and outcomes stratified by CKD stages. At enrollment, 3490 (39%) patients had an estimated creatinine clearance <60 mL /min. Patients with CKD were older and had higher CHA 2 DS 2 VAS c and Anticoagulant and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores. A rhythm control strategy was selected less frequently in patients with CKD , while OAC use was lower among Stage IV and V CKD patients. After adjustment, no significant interaction was noted for OAC and CKD on all‐cause mortality ( P =0.5442) or cardiovascular death ( P =0.1233), although a trend for increased major bleeding ( P =0.0608) and stroke, systemic embolism or transient ischemic attack ( P =0.0671) was observed. No interaction was noted for antiarrhythmic drug use and CKD status on all‐cause mortality ( P =0.9706), or stroke, systemic embolism or transient ischemic attack ( P =0.4218). Conclusions Patients with atrial fibrillation and CKD are less likely to be treated with rhythm control. Patients with advanced CKD are less likely to receive OAC . Finally, outcomes with OAC in patients with advanced CKD may be materially different with higher rates of both bleeding and stroke.

Background: Bleeding is commonly cited as a reason for stopping oral anticoagulants (OACs). Whether minor bleeding events (nuisance bleeding, NB) in patients with atrial fibrillation on OACs are associated with OAC discontinuation, major bleeding, and stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) is unknown. Methods: Within the ORBIT-AF prospective, outpatient registry (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation), we identified 6771 patients ≥18 years of age at 172 sites with atrial fibrillation and eligible follow-up visits. NB was ascertained from the medical record and was defined as minor bleeding that did not require medical attention (eg, bruising, hemorrhoidal bleeding). We used multivariable pooled logistic regression modeling to evaluate the associations between NB and major bleeding and SSE in the 180 days after documentation of NB. Our unit of analysis was the patient visit, occurring at ≈6-month intervals for a median of 1.5 years following enrollment. Changes in anticoagulation treatment satisfaction after NB were examined descriptively in a subset of patients. Results: The median age of the overall population was 75.0 (interquartile range, 67.0–81.0); 90.0% were white and 42.5% were female. Among 6771 patients (18 560 visits), n=1357 (20.0%) had documented NB, for an incidence rate of 14.8 events per 100 person-years. Over 96.4% of patients remained on OAC therapy after the NB event. Overall, 287 (4.3%) patients experienced major bleeding and 64 (0.96%) had a SSE event during follow-up. NB was not associated with a significant increased risk of major bleeding over 6 months in models adjusting for the ATRIA bleeding score (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.68–1.60; P =0.86). NB was also not associated with increased SSE risk over 6 months in models adjusting for the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc risk score (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–2.91; P =0.62). Conclusions: NB is common among patients with atrial fibrillation on OACs. However, NB was not associated with a higher risk of major bleeding or SSE over the next 6 months, suggesting its occurrence should not lead to changes in anticoagulation treatment strategies in OAC-treated patients. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Background Non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are indicated for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) but require lower doses in certain patients. We sought to describe the frequency, appropriateness (according to Food and Drug Administration labeling), and outcomes of patients prescribed reduced doses of NOACs in community practice. Methods and Results We analyzed data from the ORBIT‐AF II (The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II) registry, a prospective, national, observational registry of AF patients. Among 7925 AF patients receiving NOACs, we assessed patterns of use of reduced NOAC doses and associated cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes at median follow‐up of 1 year. Overall, 6636 patients (84%) received a NOAC at standard dose, which was consistent with US Food and Drug Administration labeling in 6376 (96%). Reduced NOAC dose was prescribed to 1289 (16% overall), which was consistent with Food and Drug Administration labeling in only 555 patients (43%). Compared with those whose NOAC dose was appropriately reduced, patients receiving inappropriate dose reductions were younger (median age 79 versus 84, P <0.0001) and had lower ORBIT bleeding risk scores (26% ≥4 versus 45%, P <0.0001). Compared with those appropriately receiving standard dosing, patients receiving inappropriately reduced‐dose NOACs had higher unadjusted rates of thromboembolic events (2.11 versus 1.35 events per 100 patient years, hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 0.92‐2.67) and death (6.77 versus 2.60, hazard ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval 1.86‐3.67). After adjustment, outcomes were not significantly different but tended to favor patients dosed appropriately. Conclusions The majority of dose reductions of NOACs in AF are inconsistent with US Food and Drug Administration recommendations. There appear to be opportunities to improve current NOAC dosing in community practice. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01701817.