Thomas, Laine

Background Oral anticoagulation ( OAC ) reduces stroke risk in atrial fibrillation, but bleeding is a frequent side effect. The decision to discontinue or modify medication regimens in response to a bleeding event may differ according to bleeding site and severity. Methods and Results We used data from a large, national outpatient registry, ORBIT ‐ AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation; 2010–2011), to evaluate event characteristics and OAC management following the first bleeding event occurring during follow‐up. Bleeding events were classified into 3 categories: (1) International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding, (2) clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding requiring medical attention, and (3) nuisance bleeding not requiring medical attention (eg, bruising, hemorrhoidal bleeding). Of 9743 patients enrolled in ORBIT ‐ AF with follow‐up data, 510 (3.23/100 subject‐years) experienced a major bleed, 615 (3.90/100 subject‐years), experienced a clinically relevant nonmajor bleed, and 1558 (9.87/100 subject‐years) experienced a nuisance bleed, among first bleeds over 2 years. Nearly one third of patients (31.6%) discontinued OAC therapy following a major bleeding event, 12.7% following a clinically relevant nonmajor bleed, and 4.5% following a nuisance bleed. Compared with those who experienced a clinically relevant nonmajor or nuisance bleed, patients who experienced a major bleed were more likely to be black and female and to have a history of heart failure and stroke. Those who discontinued were more likely to have central nervous system or gastrointestinal bleeding than those who persisted on OAC therapy. Conclusions Overall, 1 in 3 patients who experienced a major bleed was no longer anticoagulated after the event. Those who discontinued OAC were more likely to have central nervous system or gastrointestinal bleeding than those who persisted on OAC .

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 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.

Improving the quality of care that patients receive is a major focus of clinical research, particularly in the setting of cardiovascular hospitalization. Quality improvement studies seek to estimate and visualize the degree of variability in dichotomous treatment patterns and outcomes across different providers, whereby naive techniques either over-estimate or under-estimate the actual degree of variation. Various statistical methods have been proposed for similar applications including (1) the Gaussian hierarchical model, (2) the semi-parametric Bayesian hierarchical model with a Dirichlet process prior and (3) the non-parametric empirical Bayes approach of smoothing by roughening. Alternatively, we propose that a recently developed method for density estimation in the presence of measurement error, moment-adjusted imputation, can be adapted for this problem. The methods are compared by an extensive simulation study. In the present context, we find that the Bayesian methods are sensitive to the choice of prior and tuning parameters, whereas moment-adjusted imputation performs well with modest sample size requirements. The alternative approaches are applied to identify disparities in the receipt of early physician follow-up after myocardial infarction across 225 hospitals in the CRUSADE registry.

Background The presence of valvular heart disease ( VHD ) may affect the risk of stroke and mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ). Community‐based estimates of prevalence and outcomes of specific forms of VHD in patients with AF are lacking. Methods and Results We examined the prevalence of VHD , anticoagulation use, mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and bleeding among a community cohort of patients with AF . Significant VHD was defined as follows: (1) moderate/severe mitral stenosis or mechanical valve; (2) bioprosthetic valve, surgical repair, or balloon valvuloplasty; and (3) moderate/severe aortic regurgitation or stenosis, mitral regurgitation, or tricuspid regurgitation. Proportional hazards models were performed to test the association between VHD groups and outcomes. Among 9748 patients with AF , 2705 (27.7%) had significant VHD . Anticoagulation use was highest among patients with mitral stenosis/mechanical valve (91.8%). Compared with individuals with no significant VHD , individuals with aortic regurgitation/aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, or tricuspid regurgitation (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–1.42) had the highest risk of death. There were no differences in stroke or transient ischemic attack and major bleeding among individuals with and without significant VHD . Patients with AF and aortic stenosis had the highest risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.62). Conclusions Significant VHD is common among patients with AF in community practice. In a community cohort of patients with AF and CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score ≥2, most were anticoagulated. Individuals with AF and moderate‐to‐severe biological VHD have more comorbidities and a higher mortality risk; however, stroke and major bleeding are similar among those with and without significant VHD .

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.