Piccini, Jonathan P.

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.

Background: In patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF), several clinical trials have reported improved outcomes, including freedom from AF recurrence, quality of life, and survival, with catheter ablation. This article describes the treatment-related outcomes of the AF patients with heart failure enrolled in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). Methods: The CABANA trial randomized 2204 patients with AF who were ≥65 years old or <65 years old with ≥1 risk factor for stroke at 126 sites to ablation with pulmonary vein isolation or drug therapy including rate or rhythm control drugs. Of these, 778 (35%) had New York Heart Association class >II at baseline and form the subject of this article. The CABANA trial’s primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Results: Of the 778 patients with heart failure enrolled in CABANA, 378 were assigned to ablation and 400 to drug therapy. Ejection fraction at baseline was available for 571 patients (73.0%), and 9.3% of these had an ejection fraction <40%, whereas 11.7% had ejection fractions between 40% and 50%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ablation arm had a 36% relative reduction in the primary composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.41–0.99]) and a 43% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33–0.96]) compared with drug therapy alone over a median follow-up of 48.5 months. AF recurrence was decreased with ablation (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42–0.74]). The adjusted mean difference for the AFEQT (Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life) summary score averaged over the entire 60-month follow-up was 5.0 points, favoring the ablation arm (95% CI, 2.5–7.4 points), and the MAFSI (Mayo Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Symptom Inventory) frequency score difference was –2.0 points, favoring ablation (95% CI, –2.9 to –1.2). Conclusions: In patients with AF enrolled in the CABANA trial who had clinically diagnosed stable heart failure at trial entry, catheter ablation produced clinically important improvements in survival, freedom from AF recurrence, and quality of life relative to drug therapy. These results, obtained in a cohort most of whom had preserved left ventricular function, require independent trial verification. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00911508 ; Unique identifier: NCT0091150.

Clinically recognized atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of complications, including ischemic stroke, cognitive decline, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death. It is increasingly recognized that AF frequently is undetected until complications such as stroke or heart failure occur. Hence, the public and clinicians have an intense interest in detecting AF earlier. However, the most appropriate strategies to detect undiagnosed AF (sometimes referred to as subclinical AF) and the prognostic and therapeutic implications of AF detected by screening are uncertain. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s virtual workshop focused on identifying key research priorities related to AF screening. Global experts reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified critical research priorities in the following areas: (1) role of opportunistic screening; (2) AF as a risk factor, risk marker, or both; (3) relationship between AF burden detected with long-term monitoring and outcomes/treatments; (4) designs of potential randomized trials of systematic AF screening with clinically relevant outcomes; and (5) role of AF screening after ischemic stroke. Our report aims to inform and catalyze AF screening research that will advance innovative, resource-efficient, and clinically relevant studies in diverse populations to improve the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of patients with undiagnosed AF.

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89–6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311–$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20–5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624–$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583–$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. Conclusions: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

Abstract Background The CABANA trial compared drug vs ablation therapy yet did not identify a difference in the primary endpoint of death, stroke, severe bleeding, or cardiac arrest or the secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality by intention to treat (ITT) analysis. Nevertheless, there was evidence of improved outcomes and survival in the as-treated and per-protocol analyses. Objectives To determine how the treatment strategies of drug therapy vs ablation impact the atrial fibrillation progression and regression. Methods CABANA randomized 2204 pts with AF ≥65 yrs old or &lt;65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke at 126 sites worldwide to ablation with pulmonary vein isolation vs drug including rate/rhythm control medication. AF type was recorded at the time of enrollment in the CABANA Trial. Following treatment with drug therapy or ablation, the AF type was assessed as recorded at the patient's last follow-up. Comparisons between baseline AF type and last AF type were performed according to ITT. Results Following treatment with ablation, 64% maintained sinus rhythm with elimination of AF, 11% experienced AF regression, and only 7% had progression of AF. In contrast, in those randomized to drug therapy, only 48% experienced maintenance of sinus rhythm, 10% experienced AF regression, and 13% had progression of AF. Moreover, in the drug arm there was a 32% increase in long-standing persistent compared with a 49% reduction in the ablation arm. Conclusion Catheter ablation significantly alters the natural history of atrial fibrillation. Intention to treat analysis reveals that catheter ablation provides superior elimination of AF, protection against AF progression, and dramatically lower risks of long-standing persistent AF. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Institutes of Health

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in medicine are currently areas of intense exploration, showing potential to automate human tasks and even perform tasks beyond human capabilities. Literacy and understanding of AI/ML methods are becoming increasingly important to researchers and clinicians. The first objective of this review is to provide the novice reader with literacy of AI/ML methods and provide a foundation for how one might conduct an ML study. We provide a technical overview of some of the most commonly used terms, techniques, and challenges in AI/ML studies, with reference to recent studies in cardiac electrophysiology to illustrate key points. The second objective of this review is to use examples from recent literature to discuss how AI and ML are changing clinical practice and research in cardiac electrophysiology, with emphasis on disease detection and diagnosis, prediction of patient outcomes, and novel characterization of disease. The final objective is to highlight important considerations and challenges for appropriate validation, adoption, and deployment of AI technologies into clinical practice.

Background Cardioversion is common among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesised that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) used in clinical practice resulted in similar rates of stroke compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for cardioversion. Methods Using the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II, patients with AF who had a cardioversion, follow-up data and an AF diagnosis within 6 months of enrolment were identified retrospectively. Clinical outcomes were compared for patients receiving a NOAC or VKA for 1 year following cardioversion. Results Among 13 004 patients with AF, 2260 (17%) underwent cardioversion. 1613 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. At the time of cardioversion, 283 (17.5%) were receiving a VKA and 1330 (82.5%) a NOAC. A transoesophageal echocardiogram (TOE) was performed in 403 (25%) cardioversions. The incidence of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) at 30 days was the same for patients having (3.04 per 100 patient-years) or not having (3.04 per 100 patient-years) a TOE (p=0.99). There were no differences in the incidence of death (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.28, p=0.61), cardiovascular hospitalisation (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, p=0.91), stroke/TIA (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.74, p=0.81) or bleeding-related hospitalisation (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.52, p=0.45) at 1 year for patients treated with either a NOAC or VKA. Conclusions Cardioversion was a low-risk procedure for patients treated with NOAC, and there were statistically similar rates of stroke/TIA 30 days after cardioversion as for patients treated with VKA. There were no statically significant differences in death, stroke/TIA or major bleeding at 1 year among patients treated with NOAC compared with VKA after cardioversion.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing cardiac catheterization face risks for embolic and bleeding events, yet information on strategies to mitigate these risks in contemporary practice is lacking. Methods: We aimed to describe the clinical/procedural characteristics of a contemporary cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation on OAC who underwent cardiac catheterization. Use of bleeding avoidance strategies and bridging therapy were described and outcomes including death, stroke, and major bleeding at 30 days and 1 year were compared by OAC type. Results: Of 13 404 patients in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II Registry from 2013 to 2016, 741 underwent cardiac catheterization (139 with percutaneous coronary intervention) in the setting of OAC. The patients’ median age was 71, 61.8% were male, white (87.2%), had hypertension (83.7%), hyperlipidemia (72.1%), diabetes mellitus (31.6%), and chronic kidney disease (28.2%); 20.2% received warfarin while 79.8% received direct acting oral anticoagulant. One third of patients underwent radial artery access, and bivalirudin was used in 4.6%. Bridging therapy was used more often in patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant (16.7% versus10.0%). OAC was interrupted in 93.8% of patients. Patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant were equally likely to restart OAC (58.0% versus 60.7%), had similar use of antiplatelet therapy (44.0% versus 41.3%) after catheterization, and had similar rates of myocardial infarction and death at 1 year, but higher rates of major bleeding (43.3 versus 12.9 events/100 patient years) and stroke (4.9 versus 1.9 events/100 patient years). Conclusions: In a real-world registry of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization, most cases are elective, performed by femoral access, with interruption of OAC. Bleeding avoidance strategies such as radial artery access and bivalirudin were used infrequently and use of bridging therapy was uncommon. Nearly 40% of patients did not restart OAC postprocedure, exposing patients to risk for stroke. Further research is necessary to optimize the management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac catheterization.

Abstract Aims To determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP’s recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75–3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50–3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively]. Conclusion Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) adversely impacts health-related quality of life (hrQoL). While some patients demonstrate improvements in hrQoL, the factors associated with large improvements in hrQoL are not well described. Methods: We assessed factors associated with a 1-year increase in the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life score of 1 SD (≥18 points; 3× clinically important difference), among outpatients in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation I registry. Results: Overall, 28% (181/636) of patients had such a hrQoL improvement. Compared with patients not showing large hrQoL improvement, they were of similar age (median 73 versus 74, P =0.3), equally likely to be female (44% versus 48%, P =0.3), but more likely to have newly diagnosed AF at baseline (18% versus 8%; P =0.0004), prior antiarrhythmic drug use (52% versus 40%, P =0.005), baseline antiarrhythmic drug use (34.8% versus 26.8%, P =0.045), and more likely to undergo AF-related procedures during follow-up (AF ablation: 6.6% versus 2.0%, P =0.003; cardioversion: 12.2% versus 5.9%, P =0.008). In multivariable analysis, a history of alcohol abuse (adjusted OR, 2.41; P =0.01) and increased baseline diastolic blood pressure (adjusted OR, 1.23 per 10-point increase and >65 mm Hg; P =0.04) were associated with large improvements in hrQoL at 1 year, whereas patients with prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and peripheral arterial disease were less likely to improve ( P <0.05 for each). Conclusions: In this national registry of patients with AF, potentially treatable AF risk factors are associated with large hrQoL improvement, whereas less reversible conditions appeared negatively associated with hrQoL improvement. Understanding which patients are most likely to have large hrQoL improvement may facilitate targeting interventions for high-value care that optimizes patient-reported outcomes in AF. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.