Kim, Sunghee

Background: Randomized clinical trials are often criticized for not reflecting real-world practice. To understand the effect of site and patient selection on trial generalizability, we examined US patient and hospital participation within the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) Study, a broadly inclusive trial of PCI patients, using a linked analysis with the CathPCI Registry®. Methods: Within the CathPCI Registry, we identified patients undergoing PCI between September 1, 2009 and July 1, 2011 - the period of DAPT Study enrollment. We compared US patients enrolled in DAPT to CathPCI Registry patients meeting DAPT inclusion criteria. Characteristics of US DAPT sites were also compared to those of hospitals not participating in DAPT. Standardized differences (%) for all variables were estimated, with those greater than 10% considered significant. Results: Among 1,139,932 NCDR patients undergoing PCI, 748374 (65.7%) met the enrollment criteria for DAPT, and 23495 (2.1%) were enrolled. Enrolled patients were younger and had lower rates of prior stroke, CHF and peripheral vascular disease, but were similar with respect to race and gender compared with eligible patients (Table). Of the 1276 hospitals within the NCDR, 309 (24.2%) participated in DAPT. Hospital characteristics differed markedly, with DAPT-participating hospitals being larger (mean beds 468 vs. 311), more often located in urban settings (61.2% vs. 42.6%), more often affiliated with training programs (53.7% vs. 34.1%), and with higher annual PCI volumes (mean annual hospital volume 858 vs. 378 PCIs) compared with non-DAPT hospitals. Conclusions: While liberal inclusion criteria may allow randomized trials to better simulate “real-world” clinical practice, the process of site selection may encourage participation of higher volume, urban hospital settings. These findings are relevant to clinical trial interpretation and implementation of evidence-based practice throughout the healthcare system.

Background: Interruption of OAC is often required for invasive procedures, yet the frequency, management, and outcomes of temporary interruptions (TIs) in community practice are unknown. Methods: We assessed the frequency and reasons for TI in outpatients with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF). Patient characteristics and use of bridging anticoagulants were analyzed. Endpoints included periprocedural adverse events (bleeding, thrombotic, or other) and cause-specific hospitalization within 30 days after TI. Results: Overall 7,372 patients were treated with OAC at baseline; 30% (n=2200) required at least 1 TI during median follow-up of 1 year. Patients requiring TI were similar in age (mean age 74 for both) and CHADS2 scores (mean 2.4 for both) to those not requiring TI. Among 3104 interruptions, the most commonly-identified reasons were for non-cardiac surgery (n=827, 27%), followed by endoscopic procedures (n=551, 18%) and cardiac catheterization (n=308, 10%). Bridging anticoagulants were used in 23% (n=709) of interruptions, including low-molecular weight heparin (n=512) or unfractionated heparin (n=109). Rates of bridging were highest during cardiac surgery (44%), cardiac catheterization (32%), and catheter ablation (33%). Patients with a prior stroke or TIA were significantly more likely to receive bridging (35% vs. 25%, p=0.0003), however there was no difference between patients with CHADS2 score >=2 vs. 0-1 (27% vs. 25%, p=NS). Adverse events during interruption were more common in bridged patients (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p=0.02), including bleeding events (3.6% vs. 1.8%, p=0.02); thrombotic events were uncommon (0.7 [n=4] vs. 0.5% [n=10], p=NS). After interruption, adverse events occurred early in follow-up (Figure), and bridged patients were more likely to experience any adverse event (13% vs. 6.3%, p<0.0001), cardiovascular hospitalization (4.3% vs. 2.3%, p=0.02), and bleeding hospitalization (2.2% vs. 0.7%, p=0.002) within 30 days. Conclusions: Temporary interruptions are common in patients receiving OAC for AF, however, bridging anticoagulation is used in a minority. Bleeding events following TI occurred significantly more often in patients receiving bridging anticoagulation.

Background: The use of evidence-based therapies to treat cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors in patients with AF in outpatient clinical practice has not been well characterized. Methods: Using a large, community-based registry of patients with AF in the United States, the prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and corresponding use of evidence-based therapies were determined. Results: Among 9,589 enrolled patients with AF, the median age was 75 years; 57.8% were male; 10.7% were non-white; 69.9% had Medicare or Medicaid; 31.8% had coronary heart disease, 32.2% had heart failure, 13.0% had peripheral vascular disease, and 29.5% had diabetes mellitus. Among eligible patients, 62.8% of 3,612 were prescribed an antiplatelet agent, 72.1% of 4,674 were prescribed a β-blocker, 59.7% of 5,121 were prescribed an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, 15.7% of 624 were prescribed an aldosterone antagonist, 70.1% of 6,914 were prescribed a statin, 94.7% of 8,329 were prescribed an antihypertensive, 58.3% of 504 had an ICD, and 44.5% of 9,589 received all indicated evidence-based therapies ( Table ). Conclusion: Cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors in patients with AF are often inadequately treated with evidence-based therapies in the outpatient practice setting, underscoring opportunities to improve care for patients with AF.

Introduction: Warfarin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) such as dabigatran are effective for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few analyses have compared persistence rates of warfarin vs. dabigatran-treated patients. Methods: The ORBIT-AF registry enrolled patients with AF from 173 clinical practices across the US. One-year persistence of warfarin vs. dabigatran was defined as treatment at baseline visit and at 1-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify characteristics associated with warfarin or NOAC persistent use. Results: At baseline, 6.4% (N=459/7,150) were treated with dabigatran and 93.6% (N=6,691/7,150) with warfarin. Patients treated with warfarin at baseline were older (74 vs. 71, p<.0001), had more NYHA class III/IV heart failure (7 vs. 5, p=.0007), lower creatinine clearance (77 vs. 88, p<.0001), higher CHA2DS2-VASc risk scores, and more prior CVA/TIA events (16 vs. 11, p=.003). Patients treated with dabigatran had more severe symptoms (EHRA class III: 20 vs. 14, p<.0001), higher rates of treatment with a rhythm control strategy (42.7 vs. 28.2, p<.0001), more attempts at cardioversion (38.3 vs. 32.1, p<.006), and catheter ablation of AF (9.8 vs. 5.2, p<.0001). At 12 months, adjusted persistence rates for warfarin were higher than dabigatran [82% (80-84) vs. 67% (61-73) p<.0001]. Factors independently associated with one year persistence were: African American race (OR 1.53, 95% C.I. 1.07-2.19, p=0.02), Hispanic race (OR 1.66, 95% C.I. 1.06-2.60), paroxysmal AF (vs. new onset) (OR 1.68, 95% C.I. 1.21-2.33, p=.002), LVH (OR 1.40, 95% C.I. 1.08-1.81, p=.01), persistent AF (vs. new onset) (OR 1.91, 95% C.I. 1.35-2.69, p=.0002), and CHA2DS2-VASc risk scores ≥ 2 (OR 1.94, 95% C.I. 1.18-3.19, p=.009). Conclusion: Persistence rates for warfarin were higher at one year than those on dabigatran. In addition, factors associated with persistence of warfarin include: African American and Hispanic race, type of AF including permanent and persistent, LVH, and CHA2DS2-VASc risk scores ≥ 2.

Background: Little is known about whether insurance status affects the presentation and treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We used data from the ORBIT-AF Registry (2010 - 2011), a national, large outpatient registry, to evaluate clinical characteristics and oral anticoagulation (OAC) use. We examined differences in comorbidities and receipt of OAC among patients enrolled in the Medicaid program at baseline compared with those not enrolled in Medicaid. After restricting to patients who were taking OAC, we compared receipt of novel oral anticoagulants (dabigatran or rivaroxaban) versus warfarin by Medicaid status during 2 years of followup. We used logistic regression models adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates to evaluate baseline OAC receipt by Medicaid status. Results: Of 10,133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) were classified as having Medicaid insurance. Compared with those with other insurance, Medicaid patients were younger (70.0 years; IQR=61.0 - 79.0 vs. 75.0 years; IQR=67.0 - 82.0), more likely to be female (53.0% vs. 41.8%), and less likely to be white (58.7% vs. 90.7%; all p<0.001). Medicaid patients had higher rates of smoking, prior stroke/TIA, diabetes, hypertension, and HF. Medicaid patients were less likely to be taking OAC at baseline, a difference that was particularly pronounced for high stroke risk patients (CHADS2>=2, p<0.001; Table). Among those on anticoagulation, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive NOAC over 2 years of followup. In adjusted analyses, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive OAC at baseline, but this difference was not statistically significant (HR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.61, 1.09). Among untreated patients with CHADS2>=2, Medicaid patients were more likely than patients with other insurance to have “unable to adhere/monitor” listed as a contraindication to OAC (p<0.001). Conclusions: In a contemporary, community-based AF cohort, Medicaid patients had a greater comorbidity burden and higher stroke risk, yet were less likely to receive OAC compared with those with other forms of insurance.

Background Oral anticoagulation (OAC) can reduce stroke risk at the cost of increased bleeding risk in those with atrial fibrillation (AF). Observational data have shown that higher-risk patients with AF most likely to benefit from OAC are less likely to receive OAC at hospital discharge. Methods We used data from ORBIT-AF Registry, a cohort of 9,589 AF patients enrolled among 173 participating outpatient practices. OAC was defined as warfarin or dabigatran use at study enrollment. Stroke and bleeding risk were calculated using the CHADS2 and ATRIA scores, respectively. Results The study population had a mean age of 73.5 years; 57.8% were men. Overall, 76.4% of patients received OAC. Use of OAC rose with increasing CHADS2 stroke risk, from 67% for CHADS2 <1 to 80% for CHADS2 ≥2 (p<0.0001). OAC use fell slightly with increasing ATRIA bleeding risk, from 77% for ATRIA score ≤3 to 74% with ≥5 (p=0.002 for trend). Among patients with low bleeding risk, rates of OAC increased commensurate with stroke risk (p<0.0001 for interaction; see figure). Higher bleeding risk tended to decrease rates of OAC among patients with a CHADS2 score ≥2 (p=0.13 for interaction). Conclusions In community-based outpatients with AF, use of OAC rose with increasing thromboembolic risk and declined with higher bleeding risk. These findings suggest that the risk-treatment paradox may be less that previously reported. Provision of OAC in community practice appears to appropriately consider patients' stroke and bleeding risks. Further research is required to understand how quality improvement initiatives can further improve stroke prevention.

Introduction: Patient understanding of available therapies for atrial fibrillation (AF) is foundational to shared medical decision making and long term medication adherence. Yet, there is a paucity of data regarding the extent to which patients newly diagnosed with AF in routine community practice understand their options. Hypotheses: 1) Understanding of warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC), rhythm control therapy, cardioversion and radio frequency ablation changes little from baseline to 6 months and 2) treatment rates at 6 months are associated with patient understanding of therapies at baseline. Methods: We analyzed survey data from SATELLITE, a substudy of new-onset AF patients enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the ORBIT-AF registry. Patients were surveyed at the baseline and 6 month follow up clinic visit using Likert scales. Agreement between time points was assessed with the McNemar test, and the relationship between understanding and treatment was assessed only for the subset not on treatment at baseline. Results: Of 1000 patients enrolled in SATELLITE, 506 had 6-month survey data (data collection is continuing). Among these, the median age was 69.0 years (IQR 63.0 - 76.0) and 93.7% (474 of 506) were white. There was evidence of improvement in the self-reported understanding of warfarin and NOACs from baseline to 6 months, but not for rhythm control, ablation or cardioversion. The proportion reporting high understanding improved significantly for warfarin (p<.0001) and NOACs (p<.0001) from 47% (223 of 474) and 51% (245 of 481) at baseline to 60% (284 of 474) and 69% (332 of 481) at 6 months respectively (Figure 1). Patients with high understanding of the benefits of ablation (p=0.0005) and options for ablation (p=0.0093) at baseline were more likely to have this therapy at the 6 month follow up (N=590), but improved understanding was not associated with increased use of warfarin/NOACs (N=83) or rhythm control (N=444). Conclusions: Patients with new-onset AF had improved self-reported understanding of some treatment options over the first 6-months from diagnosis; however, factors other than patient understanding may influence AF treatments received at 6 months. Patient understanding of AF treatments remains suboptimal at 6 months, and our results suggest a need for ongoing patient education.

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 Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines suggest that for patients with atrial fibrillation who are at low risk for stroke (CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=1) (or women with CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=2) a variety of treatment strategies may be considered. However, in clinical practice, patterns of treatment in these “low‐risk” patients are not well described. The objective of this analysis is to define thromboembolic event rates and to describe treatment patterns in patients with low‐risk CHA 2 DS 2 VASc scores. Methods and Results We compared characteristics, treatment strategies, and outcomes among patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=0, CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=1, females with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=2, and CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥2 in ORBIT‐AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) I & II. Compared with CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥2 patients (84.2%), those with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=0 (60.3%), 1 (69.9%), and females with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score=2 (72.4%) were significantly less often treated with oral anticoagulation ( P <0.0001). Stroke rates were low overall and ranged from 0 per 100 patient‐years in those with CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=0, 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.5–1.2]) in those with CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=1, 0.8 (95% CI [0.4–1.6]) in females with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score=2, and 1.7 (95% CI [1.6–1.9]) in CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥2. All‐cause mortality (per 100 patient‐years) was highest in females with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score=2 (1.4) (95% CI [0.8–2.3]), compared with patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=0 (0.2) (95% CI [0.1–1.0]), and CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=1 (1.0) (95% CI [0.7–1.4]), but lower than patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥2 (5.7) (95% CI [5.4–6.0]). Conclusion The majority of CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=0‐1 patients are treated with oral anticoagulation. In addition, the absolute risks of death and stroke/transient ischemic attack were low among both male and females CHA 2 DS 2 VASc=0‐1 as well as among females with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score=2. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01701817.

Objective To describe self-reported disease understanding for newly diagnosed patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and assess (1) how disease understanding changes over the first 6 months after diagnosis and (2) the relationship between patient understanding of therapies at baseline and treatment receipt at 6 months among treatment-naïve patients. Methods We analysed survey data from SATELLITE (Survey of Patient Knowledge and Personal Priorities for Treatment), a substudy of patients with new-onset AF enrolled in the national Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT) II registry across 56 US sites. Patients were surveyed at the baseline and 6-month follow-up clinic visits using Likert scales. Results Among 1004 baseline survey responses, patients’ confidence in their understanding of rhythm control, ablation, anticoagulation and cardioversion was suboptimal, with ‘high’ understanding ranging from 8.5% for left atrial appendage closure to 71.3% for rhythm therapy. Of medical history and demographic factors, education level was the strongest predictor of reporting ‘high’ disease understanding. Among the 786 patients with 6-month survey data, significant increases in the proportion reporting high understanding were observed (p<0.05) only for warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). With the exception of ablation, high understanding for a given therapeutic option was not associated with increased use of that therapy at 6 months. Conclusions About half of patients with new-onset AF understood the benefits of oral anticoagulant at the time of diagnosis and understanding improved over the first 6 months. However, understanding of AF treatment remains suboptimal at 6 months. Our results suggest a need for ongoing patient education. Clinical trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01701817.