Citations

Background The prevalence of atrial fibrillation ( AF ) continues to increase; however, there are limited data describing the division of care among practitioners in the community and whether care differs depending on provider specialty. Methods and Results Using the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF ( ORBIT ‐ AF ) Registry, we described patient characteristics and AF management strategies in ambulatory clinic practice settings, including electrophysiology ( EP ), general cardiology, and primary care. A total of 10 097 patients were included; of these, 1544 (15.3%) were cared for by an EP provider, 6584 (65.2%) by a cardiology provider, and 1969 (19.5%) by an internal medicine/primary care provider. Compared with those patients who were cared for by cardiologists or internal medicine/primary care providers, patients cared for by EP providers were younger (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, IQR , 64, 80 years, Q1, Q3] versus 75 years [ IQR , 67, 82 years] for cardiology and versus 76 years [ IQR , 68, 82 years] for primary care). Compared with cardiology and internal medicine/primary care providers, EP providers used rhythm control (versus rate control) management more often (44.2% versus 29.7% and 28.8%, respectively, P <0.0001; adjusted odds ratio [ OR ] EP versus cardiology, 1.66 [95% confidence interval, CI , 1.05 to 2.61]; adjusted OR for internal medicine/primary care versus cardiology, 0.91 [95% CI , 0.65 to 1.26]). Use of oral anticoagulant therapy was high across all providers, although it was higher for cardiology and EP providers (overall, 76.1%; P =0.02 for difference between groups). Conclusions Our data demonstrate important differences between provider specialties, the demographics of the AF patient population treated, and treatment strategies—particularly for rhythm control and anticoagulation therapy.

Background— Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at the highest stroke risk derive the largest benefit from oral anticoagulation (OAC). Those with the highest stroke risk have been paradoxically less likely to receive OAC. This study assessed the association between stroke and bleeding risk on rates of OAC. Methods and Results— We analyzed OAC use among 10 098 patients with AF from 174 community-based outpatient practices enrolled in 2010–2011 in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). OAC was defined as warfarin or dabigatran use at study enrollment. Stroke and bleeding risk were calculated using congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke (CHADS 2 ), and anticoagulation and risk factors in AF (ATRIA) scores, respectively. The mean subject age was 73 years; 58% were men. Overall, 76% of patients received OAC (71% warfarin and 5% dabigatran). The use of OAC increased among those with higher CHADS 2 scores, from 53% for CHADS 2 =0 to 80% for CHADS 2 ≥2 ( P <0.001). OAC use fell slightly with increasing ATRIA bleeding risk score, from 81% for ATRIA=3 to 73% for ATRIA≥5 ( P <0.001). A significant interaction existed between ATRIA and CHADS 2 scores ( P =0.021). Among those with low bleeding risk, use of OAC increased significantly with increasing stroke risk. Among those with high bleeding risk, CHADS 2 stroke risk had a smaller impact on use of OAC. Conclusions— In community-based outpatients with AF, use of OAC was high and driven by not only predominantly stroke but also bleeding risk. Stroke risk significantly affects OAC use among those with low bleeding risk, whereas those with high bleeding risk demonstrate consistently lower use of OAC regardless of stroke risk.