Go, Alan S.

Introduction: The relationship between aortic stenosis (AS) severity, AS-related symptoms, and clinical outcomes is poorly understood. Research Question: Does a history of AS-related symptoms at the time of diagnosis affect clinical outcomes including death and AS-related hospitalization? Methods: Using a combination of natural language processing algorithms and administrative codes, we ascertained physician-assessed AS, AS severity, and AS-related symptoms (chest pain, acute coronary syndrome, syncope, presyncope, orthopnea, dyspnea, PND, and worsening heart failure) in the year prior or up to 60 days after an initial AS diagnosis among 602,821 adults with echocardiograms in a large, integrated health system from 2010-2019. We examined multivariable associations between AS severity and recent AS-related symptoms for the outcomes of death and AS-related hospitalizations using Cox models. Results: Among 40,333 patients identified with incident AS, the majority had recent AS-related symptoms (mild: 80%, mild-moderate: 77%, moderate: 77%, moderate-severe: 85%, and severe AS: 87%). Patients with recent symptoms were older (mean [SD] age 78 [10] vs 75 [11] years; p<0.01), more likely female (51% vs 47%; p<0.01), and had a higher comorbidity burden. In unadjusted analyses, symptom status was a strong discriminator of risk over a median (IQR) of 2.2 (0.8-4.3) years of follow-up ( Figure ). After multivariable adjustment, AS-related symptoms remained strongly associated with death and AS-related hospitalization across the spectrum of AS severity, with moderate symptomatic patients having risk similar to severe asymptomatic patients. Conclusions: The majority of patients diagnosed with AS have recent and/or active AS-related symptoms, which is associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes. Incorporating symptom status across the individual grades of AS may improve risk stratification beyond AS severity alone.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the strongest risk factors for ischemic stroke, which is a leading cause of disability and death. Given the aging population, increasing prevalence of AF risk factors, and improved survival in those with cardiovascular disease, the number of individuals affected by AF will continue increasing over time. While multiple proven stroke prevention therapies exist, important questions remain about the optimal approach to stroke prevention at the population and individual patient levels. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute virtual workshop focused on identifying key research opportunities related to stroke prevention in AF. The workshop reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified targeted research opportunities to advance stroke prevention in AF in the following areas: (1) improving risk stratification tools for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage; (2) addressing challenges with oral anticoagulants; and (3) delineating the optimal roles of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and surgical left atrial appendage closure/excision. This report aims to promote innovative, impactful research that will lead to more personalized, effective use of stroke prevention strategies in people with AF.

Importance Only modest attention has been paid to the contributions of social determinants of health to atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors, diagnosis, symptoms, management, and outcomes. The diagnosis of AF provides unique challenges exacerbated by the arrhythmia’s often paroxysmal nature and individuals’ disparate access to health care and technologies that facilitate detection. Social determinants of health affect access to care and management decisions for AF, increasing the likelihood of adverse outcomes among individuals who experience systemic disadvantages. Developing effective approaches to address modifiable social determinants of health requires research to eliminate the substantive inequities in health care delivery and outcomes in AF. Observations The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an expert panel to identify major knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the field of social determinants of AF. The workshop addressed the following social determinants: (1) socioeconomic status and access to care; (2) health literacy; (3) race, ethnicity, and racism; (4) sex and gender; (5) shared decision-making in systemically disadvantaged populations; and (6) place, including rurality, neighborhood, and community. Many individuals with AF have multiple adverse social determinants, which may cluster in the individual and in systemically disadvantaged places (eg, rural locations, urban neighborhoods). Cumulative disadvantages may accumulate over the life course and contribute to inequities in the diagnosis, management, and outcomes in AF. Conclusions and Relevance Workshop participants identified multiple critical research questions and approaches to catalyze social determinants of health research that address the distinctive aspects of AF. The long-term aspiration of this work is to eradicate the substantive inequities in AF diagnosis, management, and outcomes across populations.

Introduction: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in select patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The occurrence of device therapies after ICD implantation in contemporary clinical practice is not well described, especially in patient subgroups designated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2005 Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). Methods: The Longitudinal Study of ICDs assessed rates and correlates of device therapies (overall and those requiring shock) up to 3 years post-implant among 2540 patients with LVSD receiving first-time primary prevention ICDs in 7 US health care systems from 2006-2009. Implant data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry were linked to electronic longitudinal health care system data and a novel centrally adjudicated repository of device therapies abstracted from medical records. Proportional hazard models evaluated associations with device therapies by appropriateness, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Results: Subjects were 26% women, 35% <65 years old, and 59% non-Hispanic white. Over a mean 26 months, 738 (29.1%) received at least 1 therapy (median 2). Estimated 3-year risk of any device therapy was 36% (24% appropriate, 12% inappropriate); for therapy requiring shock, corresponding values were 24%, 14%, 9%. The rate of appropriate therapy was higher in men than women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 1.43-2.35). The rate of inappropriate therapy was higher for subjects <65 than for those >=65 years (1.40, 1.04-1.88), and lower among 2009 implants compared to 2006 (0.66, 0.46-0.95). Regarding the 3 CMS CED patient subgroups, neither ejection fraction nor heart failure symptom severity was associated with device therapy; for LVSD etiology, the rate of inappropriate therapy was nominally but not significantly higher among subjects with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy of < 9 months duration (1.38, 0.88-2.18). Conclusions: In a representative cohort of primary prevention ICD patients in usual care, rates of device therapies were somewhat lower than in landmark trials, differed by some patient characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for CMS CED subgroups.

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.

There has been sustained focus on the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure; yet, apart from stroke prevention, the evidence base for the secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence, AF progression, and AF‐related complications is modest. Although there are multiple observational studies, there are few large, robust, randomized trials providing definitive effective approaches for the secondary prevention of AF. Given the increasing incidence and prevalence of AF nationally and internationally, the AF field needs transformative research and a commitment to evidenced‐based secondary prevention strategies. We report on a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute virtual workshop directed at identifying knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the secondary prevention of AF. Once AF has been detected, lifestyle changes and novel models of care delivery may contribute to the prevention of AF recurrence, AF progression, and AF‐related complications. Although benefits seen in small subgroups, cohort studies, and selected randomized trials are impressive, the widespread effectiveness of AF secondary prevention strategies remains unknown, calling for development of scalable interventions suitable for diverse populations and for identification of subpopulations who may particularly benefit from intensive management. We identified critical research questions for 6 topics relevant to the secondary prevention of AF: (1) weight loss; (2) alcohol intake, smoking cessation, and diet; (3) cardiac rehabilitation; (4) approaches to sleep disorders; (5) integrated, team‐based care; and (6) nonanticoagulant pharmacotherapy. Our goal is to stimulate innovative research that will accelerate the generation of the evidence to effectively pursue the secondary prevention of 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: Novel therapies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) are emerging. However, data on use and outcomes of these agents in the community are limited, particularly in patients newly diagnosed with AF or recently transitioned to a novel anticoagulant. Methods: Phase II of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF II) is a multicenter, national, AF registry. We are enrolling 15,000 patients with new-onset AF, or those with known AF recently-transitioned to a novel anticoagulant. The primary objective is to evaluate the safety of novel anticoagulants, with specific focus on use, transitions, and management around invasive procedures and bleeding events. An adaptive design is used to ensure diversity of enrollment across geographic, provider, and treatment groups. The primary outcomes are major bleeding and thromboembolic events. Results: Of 1,011 patients in ORBIT-AF II, the median age was 73, 44% were female, 23% had a history of heart failure, 34% had a prior MI, and 11% had a prior stroke/TIA. The mean CHADS2 score was 2. Overall, 76% had AF new-onset, and a range of anticoagulant strategies was used in these patients (Figure). Among the 24% with known AF transitioned to a novel agent, 66% received rivaroxaban, versus 8.1% dabigatran, and 26% apixaban. Compared with patients having new-onset AF, those with known AF recently-transitioned to a novel anticoagulant were slightly older (median age 74 vs. 72), had higher CHADS2 scores (>2 in 70% vs. 62%), but less severe kidney disease (0 vs. 1.7%). Conclusions: Patients with new-onset AF are frequently treated with novel anticoagulants and these patients have lower risk scores than those with known AF transitioned to a novel drug. These data will provide insights into clinical management and patient centered outcomes among those treated with novel anticoagulants in real world practice settings.

Objective: Time in the therapeutic range (TTR) of INR 2.0-3.0 is an important measurement of warfarin anticoagulation quality. There are few reports on TTR in United States (US) clinical practice. Methods: Using the US ORBIT AF registry, we analyzed TTR for patients on warfarin with at least 5 recorded INR measurements. The Rosendaal method of linear interpolation was used between each pair of measured INR values. Patients were stratified into quartiles based on TTR. Results: We studied 5,451 patients treated at 169 US sites with 48% of patients being followed at an anticoagulation clinic. Patients had a median age of 76 years [interquartile range (IQR) 68-82 years] and median follow-up was 18.9 months [IQR 12.7-23.3 months], and patients were 42% women. The median number of INR draws was 21 [IQR 12-30]. Patients had an overall median TTR of 68% [IQR 52-80%]. The median TTR by quartile was 40%, 60%, 73%, and 87%. Patients were more likely to be subtherapeutic (median time of 17%) than supratherapeutic (median time of 10%). Patients age 61-80 years and those with a college education had the highest TTRs. Patients with their INR followed at an anticoagulation clinic were more likely to be in the highest TTR quartile than in the lowest (27% vs 23%, p=0.0002). Patients with worsening renal function and higher risk for bleeding (ATRIA) or stroke (CHADS2 score) had lower TTR (p<0.0001 for all) (Figure). Conclusions: In US clinical practices, warfarin patients have therapeutic INR levels about 2/3 of the time. Those at highest risk for stroke and bleeding paradoxically were the least likely to be in the therapeutic range.

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.