Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Surface guidance compared with ultrasound-based monitoring and diaphragm position in cone-beam computed tomography during abdominal stereotactic radiotherapy in breath-hold

Background and purpose: Spirometry induced deep-inspiration-breath-hold (DIBH) reduces intrafractional motion during upper abdominal stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate whether surface scanning (SGRT) is an adequate surrogate for monitoring residual internal motion during DIBH. Residual motion detected by SGRT was compared with experimental 4D-ultrasound (US) and an internal motion detection benchmark (diaphragm-dome-position in kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) projections). Materials and methods: Intrafractional monitoring was performed with SGRT and US in 460 DIBHs of 12 patients. Residual motion detected by all modalities (SGRT (anterior-posterior (AP)), US (AP, craniocaudal (CC)) and CBCT (CC)) was analyzed. Agreement analysis included Wilcoxon signed rank test, Maloney and Rastogi’s test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC) and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Interquartile range was 0.7 mm (US(AP)), 0.8 mm (US(CC)), 0.9 mm (SGRT) and 0.8 mm (CBCT). SGRT(AP) vs. CBCT(CC) and US(CC) vs. CBCT(CC) showed comparable agreement (PCCs 0.53 and 0.52, ICCs 0.51 and 0.49) with slightly higher precision of CBCT(CC). Most agreement was observed for SGRT(AP) vs. US(AP) with largest PCC (0.61) and ICC (0.60), least agreement for SGRT(AP) vs. US(CC) with smallest PCC (0.44) and ICC (0.42). Conclusions: Residual motion detected during spirometry induced DIBH is small. SGRT alone is no sufficient surrogate for residual internal motion in all patients as some high velocity motion could not be detected. Observed patient-specific residual errors may require individualized PTV-margins