Steinberg, Benjamin A.

Introduction: Randomized trials have not demonstrated significant differences in stroke, heart failure or mortality between rhythm and rate control strategies for management of atrial fibrillation (AF). The comparative outcomes in contemporary clinical practice are not well described. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in clinical practice with rhythm control versus rate control strategy. Methods: Patients managed with a rhythm control strategy targeting maintenance of sinus rhythm were retrospectively compared with a strategy of rate control alone in a AF registry across various US practice settings. Unadjusted and adjusted (inverse-propensity weighted) outcomes were estimated. Results: The overall study population (n=6988) had a median age of 74 (25th, 75th percentile 65, 81) years, 56% were males, 77% had first detected or paroxysmal AF and 89% had CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. In unadjusted analyses, rhythm control was associated with lower all-cause death, cardiovascular death, first stroke/non-central nervous system systemic embolization/transient ischemic attack, or first major bleeding event (all p<0.05); however, rhythm control was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.39, p=0.0003; Figure). Conclusion: Among patients with AF in clinical practice, rhythm control was not superior to rate control strategy for outcomes of stroke, heart failure, or mortality, but was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

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.

Background: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is effective at preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), yet warfarin is often poorly tolerated. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are as or more effective as warfarin, yet their tolerance and persistence in clinical practice is not known. Methods: We assessed patterns of persistent OAC use among 2,345 AF patients starting on therapy in the ORBIT-AF II registry (71% starting on a NOAC, and 29% on warfarin). Results: By 6 months, 364 (22%) patients started on a NOAC had discontinued or changed initial therapy versus 143 (21%) started on warfarin initially (p=0.5). Among warfarin users, patients who switched or discontinued therapy were of similar age (median ages 72 and 74 vs. 74 for stable users, p=0.7) and CHA2DS2-VASc scores (mean 98 and 3.66 vs. 3.84, p=0.4). Among NOAC users, those who discontinued treatment were younger (median age 68 vs. 73 for those who switched and 72 for stable users; p=0.0004), and lower CHA2DS2-VASc scores (3.02 vs. 3.58 and 3.47, respectively; p=0.0008). The median time to change or discontinuation was more rapid in those started on a NOAC vs warfarin (97 days vs. 122 days, p=0.003). Among those on warfarin at baseline, 7.6% (n=52) were switched to a NOAC within 6 months, whereas transitions from NOAC to warfarin was 2.5% (n=42).Transitions among NOACs occurred in 9.8%, 3.2%, and 5.5% of patients on baseline dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. Physician preference was the most common reason for both OAC and warfarin changes (Table). Drug cost was the primary reason for change of therapy in 15% of NOAC users (vs. 0 for warfarin). Conclusions: At 6-month follow-up, one in five newly started on OAC had discontinued or changed. These rates of change were similar among warfarin and NOAC treated patients. Cost concerns drove discontinuation in a modest number of patients, however, cost concerns were more prevalent in NOAC-treated patients.

Background: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are effective at preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, little is known about the frequency of major bleeds on NOACs and how these events are managed in clinical practice. Methods: We assessed the rates, management, and outcomes of ISTH major bleeding events among AF patients in the ORBIT-AF II registry (mean follow-up 213 days). Results: Overall, 103 patients experienced 110 major bleeding events during follow-up n=90/4986 (1.8%) on NOAC, and n=20/1320 (1.5%) on warfarin. Patients with bleeding events on NOAC were slightly younger than those on warfarin (median age 76 vs. 80; p=0.2). Among mutually-exclusive bleeding types, intracranial bleeding was more common in warfarin treated patients than NOAC-treated (15% vs 6.7%), whereas GI bleeding was more common on NOACs (56% vs. 40%, overall p=0.1 for bleeding type). Management of bleeding differed by anticoagulation type: blood products and reversal agents were more commonly used in patients on warfarin (Table). No patient received prothrombin complexes, recombinant factor VIIa, aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, aprotinin, or desmopressin. Out of 90 major bleeding events in NOAC patients, only 1 was fatal (1%). Within 30 days following bleeding, there were no strokes and 1 TIA (NOAC). Following a major bleed, the recurrent bleeding rate in NOAC patients in the next 30-days was 4% and the death rate was 4%. Conclusions: Rates of major bleeding with NOACs in clinical practice are comparable to those reported in clinical trials. Compared with warfarin, bleeding among NOAC users was less likely intracranial and more likely to be GI. Management of bleeding in the setting of NOAC rarely includes reversal agents.

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.

Objective Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) require dose adjustment for renal function. We sought to investigate change in renal function over time in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and whether those on NOACs have appropriate dose adjustments according to its decline. Methods We included patients with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II registry treated with oral anticoagulation. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as a decrease of >20% in creatinine clearance (CrCl) from baseline. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved package inserts were used to define the reduction criteria of NOACs dosing. Results Among 6682 patients with AF from 220 sites (median age (25th, 75th): 72.0 years (65.0, 79.0); 57.1% male; median CrCl at baseline: 80.1 mL/min (57.4, 108.5)), 1543 patients (23.1%) experienced WRF with mean decline in CrCl during 2 year follow-up of −6.63 mL/min for NOACs and −6.16 mL/min for warfarin. Among 4120 patients on NOACs, 154 (3.7%) patients had a CrCl decline sufficient to warrant FDA-recommended dose reductions. Of these, NOACs dosing was appropriately reduced in only 31 (20.1%) patients. Compared with patients with appropriately reduced NOACs, those without were more likely to experience bleeding complications (major bleeding: 1.7% vs 0%; bleeding hospitalisation: 2.6% vs 0%) at 1 year. Conclusions In the US practice, about one-fourth of patients with AF had >20% decline in CrCl over time during 2 year follow-up. As a result, about 3.7% of those treated with NOACs met guideline criteria for dose reduction, but of these, only 20.1% actually had a reduction.

Background: Studies evaluating the effects of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic therapy on outcomes have shown mixed results. In addition, guidelines recommend continuing oral anticoagulation (OAC) after ablation for those at risk of stroke, but real-world data are lacking. Methods: We evaluated outcomes including death, myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial bleeding, major bleeding, and hospitalization in patients undergoing AF ablation compared with a propensity score matched cohort of patients treated with anti-arrhythmic medications only in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation registries. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to evaluate the association between AF ablation and outcomes. We then evaluated patterns of treatment with OAC among AF ablation patients. Results: Among 21 595 patients, 1190 (6%) underwent de novo AF ablation. Our propensity score-matched cohort included 1087 patients who underwent AF ablation matched 1:1 with 1087 patients treated with antiarrhythmic medications only. There were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, and most other major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events. AF catheter ablation was associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization during follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05–1.46]), particularly in the first 3 months (the standard blanking period) after the procedure. Among those who underwent AF ablation with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women, 23% had OAC discontinued after ablation. Among those who discontinued OAC, the median time to discontinuation was 6.2 months. Conclusions: In this large US national registry, we found no difference in adjusted rates of cardiovascular or all-cause death between patients treated with AF catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic medications only. Notably, discontinuation of OAC after ablation remains relatively common despite guideline recommendations for continued stroke prevention therapy in patients at risk of stroke.