Kowey, Peter R.

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.

BackgroundOral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is associated with increased periprocedural risks after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Patterns of anticoagulation management involving non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have not been characterized.HypothesisAnticoagulation strategies and outcomes differ by anticoagulant type in patients undergoing CIED implantation.MethodsUsing the nationwide Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we assessed how atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing CIED implantation were cared for and their subsequent outcomes. Outcomes were compared by oral anticoagulant therapy (none, warfarin, or NOAC) as well as by anticoagulation interruption status.ResultsAmong 9129 AF patients, 416 (5%) underwent CIED implantation during a median follow‐up of 30 months (interquartile range, 24–36). Of these, 60 (14%) had implantation on a NOAC. Relative to warfarin therapy, those on a NOAC were younger (70.5 years [range, 65–77.5 years] vs 77 years [range, 70–82 years]), had less valvular heart disease (15.0% vs 31.3%), higher creatinine clearance (67.3 [range, 59.7–99.0] vs 65.8 [range, 50.0–91.6]), were more likely to have persistent AF (26.7% vs 22.9%), and use concomitant aspirin (51.7% vs 35.2%). OAC therapy was commonly interrupted for CIED in 64% (n = 183 of 284) of warfarin patients and 65% (n = 39 of 60) of NOAC patients. Many interrupted patients received intravenous bridging anticoagulation: 33/183 (18%) interrupted warfarin and 4/39 (10%) interrupted NOAC patients. Thirty‐day periprocedure bleeding and stroke adverse events were infrequent.ConclusionsManagement of anticoagulation among AF patients undergoing CIED implantation is highly variable, with OAC being interrupted in more than half of both warfarin‐ and NOAC‐treated patients. Bleeding and stroke events were infrequent in both warfarin and NOAC‐treated patients.

Abstract Aims The presence of cancer can complicate treatment choices for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) increasing both the risk of thrombotic and bleeding events. Methods and results Using data from Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we aimed to characterize AF patients with cancer, to describe their management and to assess the association between cancer and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Among 9749 patients, 23.8% had history of cancer (57% solid malignancy, 1.3% leukaemia, 3.3% lymphoma, 40% other type, and 2.2% metastatic cancer). Patients with history of cancer were older, more likely to have CV disease, CV risk factors, and prior gastrointestinal bleeding. No difference in antiarrhythmic and antithrombotic therapy was observed between those with and without cancer. Patients with history of cancer had a significantly higher risk of death (7.8 vs. 4.9 deaths per 100 patient-years follow-up, P = 0.0003) mainly driven by non-CV death (4.2 vs. 2.4 per 100 patient-years follow-up; P = 0.0004) and higher risk of major bleeding (5.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 patient-years follow-up; P = 0.02) compared with non-cancer patients; no differences were observed in risks of strokes/non-central nervous system embolism (1.96 vs. 1.48, P = 0.74) and CV death (2.89 vs. 2.07, P = 0.35) between the two groups. Conclusion A history of cancer is common among AF patients with up to one in four patients having both. Antithrombotic therapy, rates of cerebrovascular accident, other thrombotic events and cardiac death were similar in AF patients with or without a history of cancer. Patients with cancer, however, were at higher risk of major bleeding and non-CV death.

Background Whereas insurance status has been previously associated with care patterns, little is currently known about the association between Medicaid insurance and the clinical characteristics, treatment, or outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ). Methods and Results We used data from adults with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF ( ORBIT ‐ AF ), a national outpatient registry conducted at 176 community, multispecialty sites. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients prescribed any oral anticoagulation ( OAC ; warfarin or novel oral anticoagulants [ NOAC ]). Secondary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients prescribed NOAC s (dabigatran or rivaroxaban); time in therapeutic range ( TTR ) for warfarin users, all‐cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleed. Of 10 133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) had Medicaid insurance. Medicaid patients were similarly likely to receive OAC at baseline (72.8% vs 76.3%; unadjusted P =0.079), but less likely to receive NOAC at baseline or follow‐up (12.1% vs 16.3%; unadjusted P =0.019). After risk adjustment, Medicaid status was associated with lower use of OAC at baseline among patients with high stroke risk (odds ratio [ OR ]=0.68; 95% CI =0.49, 0.94), but was not associated with OAC use overall ( OR =0.82; 95% CI =0.61, 1.09). Among warfarin users, median TTR was lower among Medicaid patients (60% vs 68%; P <0.0001; adjusted TTR difference, −2.9; 95% CI =−5.7, −0.2; P =0.04). Use of an NOAC over 2 years of follow‐up was not statistically different by insurance. Compared with non‐Medicaid patients, Medicaid patients had higher unadjusted rates of mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding; however, these differences were attenuated following adjustment for clinical characteristics. Conclusions In a contemporary AF cohort, use of OAC overall and use of NOAC s were not significantly lower among Medicaid patients relative to others. However, among warfarin users, Medicaid patients spent less time in therapeutic range compared with those with other forms of insurance.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPatients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) have increased risk of atrial tachyarrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AF). To date, treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with SND and AF have not been well described.HypothesisPatients with SND and AF have higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.MethodsSinus node dysfunction was defined clinically, based on treating physician. Treatment patterns were described and logistic regression analysis performed to assess outcomes.ResultsOverall, 1710 (17.7%) out of 9631 patients had SND at enrollment. Patients with SND and AF had increased comorbid medical illnesses, more severe symptoms (European Heart Rhythm Association class IV: 17.5% vs 13.9%; P = 0.0007), and poorer quality of life (median 12‐month Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life score: 79.6 vs 85.2; P = 0.0008). There were no differences in AF management strategy between patients with SND and those without (rate control, 69.7% vs 67.7%; rhythm control, 30.0% vs 32.0%; P = 0.11). After adjustment, patients with SND were more likely than those without SND to progress from paroxysmal AF at baseline to persistent or permanent AF at any follow‐up, or persistent AF at baseline to permanent AF at any follow‐up (odds ratio: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.01‐1.49, P = 0.035). However, there was no association between SND and major risk‐adjusted outcomes.ConclusionsSinus node dysfunction is present in 1 of 6 patients with AF and is associated with increased comorbidities and higher symptom burden. However, SND is not associated with an increase in major risk‐adjusted outcomes.

Background Most patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) require rate control; however, the optimal target heart rate remains under debate. We aimed to assess rate control and subsequent outcomes among patients with permanent AF . Methods and Results We studied 2812 US outpatients with permanent AF in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation. Resting heart rate was measured longitudinally and used as a time‐dependent covariate in multivariable Cox models of all‐cause and cause‐specific mortality during a median follow‐up of 24 months. At baseline, 7.4% (n=207) had resting heart rate <60 beats per minute (bpm), 62% (n=1755) 60 to 79 bpm, 29% (n=817) 80 to 109 bpm, and 1.2% (n=33) ≥110 bpm. Groups did not differ by age, previous cerebrovascular disease, heart failure status, CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c scores, renal function, or left ventricular function. There were significant differences in race ( P =0.001), sinus node dysfunction ( P =0.004), and treatment with calcium‐channel blockers ( P =0.006) and anticoagulation ( P =0.009). In analyses of continuous heart rates, lower heart rate ≤65 bpm was associated with higher all‐cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [ HR ], 1.15 per 5‐bpm decrease; 95% CI , 1.01 to 1.32; P =0.04). Similarly, increasing heart rate >65 bpm was associated with higher all‐cause mortality (adjusted HR , 1.10 per 5‐bpm increase; 95% CI , 1.05 to 1.15; P <0.0001). This relationship was consistent across endpoints and in a broader sensitivity analysis of permanent and nonpermanent AF patients. Conclusions Among patients with permanent AF , there is a J‐shaped relationship between heart rate and mortality. These data support current guideline recommendations, and clinical trials are warranted to determine optimal rate control. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Background— Instruments to assess symptom burden and quality of life among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have not been well evaluated in community practice or associated with patient outcomes. Methods and Results— Using data from 10 087 AF patients in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF), symptom severity was evaluated using the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) classification system, and quality of life was assessed using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire. The association between AF-related symptoms, quality of life, and outcomes was assessed using Cox regression. The majority of AF patients (61.8%) were symptomatic (EHRA >2) and 16.5% had severe or disabling symptoms (EHRA 3–4). EHRA symptom class was well correlated with the AFEQT score (Spearman correlation coefficient −0.39). Over 1.8 years of follow-up, AF symptoms were associated with a higher risk of hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio for EHRA ≥2 versus EHRA 1 1.23, 95% confidence interval, 1.15–1.31) and a borderline higher risk of major bleeding. Lower quality of life was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio for lowest quartile of AFEQT versus highest 1.49, 95% confidence interval, 1.2–1.84), but not other major adverse events, including death. Conclusions— In a community-based study, most patients with AF were symptomatic and had impaired quality of life. Quality of life measured by the AFEQT correlated closely with symptom severity measured by the EHRA class. AF symptoms and lower quality of life were associated with higher risk of hospitalization but not mortality during follow-up.