Freeman, James V.

Introduction: Patient understanding of available therapies for atrial fibrillation (AF) is foundational to shared medical decision making and long term medication adherence. Yet, there is a paucity of data regarding the extent to which patients newly diagnosed with AF in routine community practice understand their options. Hypotheses: 1) Understanding of warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC), rhythm control therapy, cardioversion and radio frequency ablation changes little from baseline to 6 months and 2) treatment rates at 6 months are associated with patient understanding of therapies at baseline. Methods: We analyzed survey data from SATELLITE, a substudy of new-onset AF patients enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the ORBIT-AF registry. Patients were surveyed at the baseline and 6 month follow up clinic visit using Likert scales. Agreement between time points was assessed with the McNemar test, and the relationship between understanding and treatment was assessed only for the subset not on treatment at baseline. Results: Of 1000 patients enrolled in SATELLITE, 506 had 6-month survey data (data collection is continuing). Among these, the median age was 69.0 years (IQR 63.0 - 76.0) and 93.7% (474 of 506) were white. There was evidence of improvement in the self-reported understanding of warfarin and NOACs from baseline to 6 months, but not for rhythm control, ablation or cardioversion. The proportion reporting high understanding improved significantly for warfarin (p<.0001) and NOACs (p<.0001) from 47% (223 of 474) and 51% (245 of 481) at baseline to 60% (284 of 474) and 69% (332 of 481) at 6 months respectively (Figure 1). Patients with high understanding of the benefits of ablation (p=0.0005) and options for ablation (p=0.0093) at baseline were more likely to have this therapy at the 6 month follow up (N=590), but improved understanding was not associated with increased use of warfarin/NOACs (N=83) or rhythm control (N=444). Conclusions: Patients with new-onset AF had improved self-reported understanding of some treatment options over the first 6-months from diagnosis; however, factors other than patient understanding may influence AF treatments received at 6 months. Patient understanding of AF treatments remains suboptimal at 6 months, and our results suggest a need for ongoing patient education.

Introduction: The American College of Cardiology developed the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) AFib Ablation Registry to assess prevalence, demographics, procedural management and outcomes of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AFib) ablation procedures. The objective of this registry’s first presentation is to summarize initial AFib Ablation Registry data regarding patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, and in-hospital adverse events and outcomes in those undergoing AFib ablation enrolled in the registry. Methods: Data were tabulated and summarized with simple proportions for categorical data, and mean ± standard deviation for continuous data. Results: A total of 31,345 patients who underwent AFib ablation were included in the registry (mean age 65.0 ± 10.4, 65.2% male, 57.6% paroxysmal AFib), with ablations performed at 120 hospitals, by 501 physicians. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of was 2.6 ± 1.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 1.1 ± 0.9. Successful pulmonary vein isolation was able to be achieved in all veins in 94.5% of patients. The prevalence of any complication during procedural admission was 3.1%; the most common were hematoma (0.5%) and pericardial effusion requiring intervention (0.42%). The mean length of stay during the index admission (days) was 1.4 ± 7.6, and in-hospital death prevalence was 0.04% [FIGURE] . Conclusions: In conclusion, the NCDR AFib Ablation Registry is a large, national, multi-center, prospective cohort study to describe events outside the clinical trial or research setting, demonstrating successful pulmonary vein isolation in the majority of patients and a low prevalence of adverse events. Future studies from the registry will be able to help support and develop evidence-based guidelines for AFib ablation treatment and optimize patient outcomes.

Background Cardioversion is common among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesised that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) used in clinical practice resulted in similar rates of stroke compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for cardioversion. Methods Using the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II, patients with AF who had a cardioversion, follow-up data and an AF diagnosis within 6 months of enrolment were identified retrospectively. Clinical outcomes were compared for patients receiving a NOAC or VKA for 1 year following cardioversion. Results Among 13 004 patients with AF, 2260 (17%) underwent cardioversion. 1613 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. At the time of cardioversion, 283 (17.5%) were receiving a VKA and 1330 (82.5%) a NOAC. A transoesophageal echocardiogram (TOE) was performed in 403 (25%) cardioversions. The incidence of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) at 30 days was the same for patients having (3.04 per 100 patient-years) or not having (3.04 per 100 patient-years) a TOE (p=0.99). There were no differences in the incidence of death (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.28, p=0.61), cardiovascular hospitalisation (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, p=0.91), stroke/TIA (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.74, p=0.81) or bleeding-related hospitalisation (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.52, p=0.45) at 1 year for patients treated with either a NOAC or VKA. Conclusions Cardioversion was a low-risk procedure for patients treated with NOAC, and there were statistically similar rates of stroke/TIA 30 days after cardioversion as for patients treated with VKA. There were no statically significant differences in death, stroke/TIA or major bleeding at 1 year among patients treated with NOAC compared with VKA after cardioversion.

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.

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) incorporates patient and physician values and preferences into treatment selection. While multiple therapeutic options are available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), few studies have examined factors associated with SDM regarding choice of antithrombotic strategy. Methods: We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 sites participating in a substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II), an outpatient AF registry in the US. Patients were asked: “When choosing your blood thinner(s), who made this treatment decision?”, and SDM was defined as a response of “equally me and my healthcare provider (HCP)”, “mostly me” or “entirely me”, while no SDM was defined as a response of “mostly my HCP” or “entirely my HCP”. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated associations between 13 patient-level factors, self-reported understanding of treatment options, and SDM for antithrombotic therapy. Results: Most patients allowed their HCP to make the therapeutic decisions on antithrombotic strategy, with 246 (24.5%) reporting SDM. Patients reporting SDM were more often female (47.2% vs. 40.5%) and were more frequently insured by Medicare (40.2% vs. 34.5%) than patients reporting no SDM. Among patients taking warfarin, median time in therapeutic range was higher among patients reporting SDM than among those not reporting SDM. In multivariable models, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with lower odds of SDM while self-reported understanding of blood thinner options was associated with higher odds of SDM (Table). Conclusion: One in four patients in an outpatient AF registry reported that their current antithrombotic strategy was the result of a shared decision making process. Additional work is need to determine whether patient-reported SDM is associated with medication adherence and outcomes of therapy.