Go, Alan S.

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 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.

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 Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist ( MRA ) therapy may be beneficial to patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ), but little is known about their use in patients with AF and subsequent outcomes. Methods and Results In order to better understand MRA use and subsequent outcomes, we performed a retrospective cohort study of the contemporary ORBIT ‐ AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registry. AF progression and cardiovascular outcomes were compared using propensity‐matched Cox proportional hazards modeling according to MRA use at baseline and new MRA use at follow‐up versus patients with no MRA use. Among 7012 patients with nonpermanent AF , 320 patients were taking MRA at enrollment, and 416 patients initiated MRA use during follow‐up. The mean patient age was 72.5 years, 56.3% were men, and 70.4% had paroxysmal AF . Among all patients taking MRAs, 434 (59.0%) had heart failure, 655 (89.0%) had hypertension, and 380 (51.6%) had both. After adjustment, new MRA use was not associated with reduced AF progression (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.58; P =0.27) but showed a trend towards lower risk of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–1.23; P =0.08). Results were similar for a comparison of new MRA users and baseline MRA users compared with nonusers. Conclusions In community‐based outpatients with AF , the majority of MRA use was for heart failure and hypertension. MRA use also trended towards lower adjusted stroke risk. Future studies should test the hypothesis that MRA use may decrease the risk of stroke in patients with AF .

Background Primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. Methods and Results We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy <9 months’ duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% were <65 years old, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three‐year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68–2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54–0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36–0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. Conclusions In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups.

Background In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator ( ICD ) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual‐chamber devices. The superiority of dual‐chamber over single‐chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single‐ and dual‐chamber ICD s for primary prevention. Methods and Results We identified patients receiving a single‐ or dual‐chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital‐level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single‐chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual‐chamber device. In a propensity‐weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–1.38 [ P =0.65]), all‐cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.21 [ P =0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.21 [ P =0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–1.53 [ P =0.17]). Conclusions Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual‐chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single‐chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual‐chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.

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.

Objective Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have higher risk of sudden cardiac death; however, they may not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), in part due to higher risk of complications. We evaluated whether CKD is associated with greater risk of device-delivered shocks/antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies among patients receiving a primary prevention ICD. Methods We studied participants in the observational Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included all delivered shocks/ATPs therapies and type of shock/ATP therapies (inappropriate or appropriate, determined by physician adjudication) within the 3 years. We evaluated the associations between CKD and time to first device therapy, burden of device therapy, and inappropriate versus appropriate device therapy, adjusting for demographics, comorbidity, laboratory values and medication use. Results Among 2161 participants, 1066 (49.3%) had CKD (eGFR 44±11 mL/min/1.73 m2) at ICD implantation. During mean of 2.26±0.89 years, 9.8% and 18.5% of participants had at least one inappropriate and appropriate shock/ATP therapies, respectively. CKD was not associated with time to first shock/ATP therapies (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05), overall burden of shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17) or inappropriate versus appropriate shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14) compared with not having CKD. Conclusions In adults receiving a primary prevention ICD, mild-to-moderate CKD was not associated with the timing, burden or appropriateness of subsequent device therapy. Potential concern for inappropriate ICD-delivered therapies should not preclude ICDs among eligible patients with CKD.