AIM-AF: A Physician Survey in the United States and Europe.

Background Guideline recommendations are the accepted reference for selection of therapies for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was designed to understand physicians' treatment practices and adherence to guidelines. Methods and Results The AIM-AF (Antiarrhythmic Medication for Atrial Fibrillation) study was an online survey of clinical cardiologists and electrophysiologists that was conducted in the United States and Europe (N=629). Respondents actively treated ≥30 patients with AF who received drug therapy, and had received or were referred for ablation every 3 months. The survey comprised 96 questions on physician demographics, AF types, and treatment practices. Overall, 54% of respondents considered guidelines to be the most important nonpatient factor influencing treatment choice. Across most queried comorbidities, amiodarone was selected by 60% to 80% of respondents. Other nonadherent usage included sotalol by 21% in patients with renal impairment; dofetilide initiation (16%, United States only) outside of hospital; class Ic agents by 6% in coronary artery disease; and dronedarone by 8% in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Additionally, rhythm control strategies were frequently chosen in asymptomatic AF (antiarrhythmic drugs [AADs], 35%; ablation, 8%) and subclinical AF (AADs, 38%; ablation, 13%). Despite guideline algorithms emphasizing safety first, efficacy (48%) was selected as the most important consideration for AAD choice, followed by safety (34%). Conclusions Despite surveyed clinicians recognizing the importance of guidelines, nonadherence was frequently observed. While deviation may be reasonable in selected patients, in general, nonadherence has the potential to compromise patient safety. These findings highlight an underappreciation of the safe use of AADs, emphasizing the need for interventions to support optimal AAD selection

Real-world utilization of the pill-in-the-pocket method for terminating episodes of atrial fibrillation: data from the multinational Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Episodes may stop spontaneously (paroxysmal AF); may terminate only via intervention (persistent AF); or may persist indefinitely (permanent AF) (see European and American guidelines, referenced below, for more precise definitions). Recently, there has been renewed interest in an approach to terminate AF acutely referred to as 'pill-in-the-pocket' (PITP). The PITP is recognized in both the US and European guidelines as an effective option using an oral antiarrhythmic drug for acute conversion of acute/recent-onset AF. However, how PITP is currently used has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: The recently published Antiarrhythmic Interventions for Managing Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) survey included questions regarding current PITP usage, stratified by US vs. European countries surveyed, by representative countries within Europe, and by cardiologists vs. electrophysiologists. This manuscript presents the data from this planned sub-study. Our survey revealed that clinicians in both the USA and Europe consider PITP in about a quarter of their patients, mostly for recent-onset AF with minimal or no structural heart disease (guideline appropriate). However, significant deviations exist. See the Graphical abstract for a summary of the data. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the frequent use of PITP and the need for further physician education about appropriate and optimal use of this strategy

Dronedarone for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation with Concomitant Heart Failure with Preserved and Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction: Post-Hoc Analysis of the ATHENA Trial.

AIMS: Limited therapeutic options are available for the management of atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) with concomitant heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction. (HFpEF and HFmrEF). Dronedarone reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with AF, but sparse data are available examining its role in patients with AF complicated by HFpEF and HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: ATHENA was an international, multicenter trial that randomized 4,628 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL and cardiovascular risk factors to dronedarone 400 mg twice daily versus placebo. We evaluated patients with 1) symptomatic HFpEF and HFmrEF (defined as LVEF>40%, evidence of structural heart disease, and New York Heart Association class II/III or diuretic use), 2) HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF≤40%), and 3) those without HF. We assessed effects of dronedarone vs placebo on death or cardiovascular hospitalization (primary endpoint), other key efficacy endpoints, and safety. Overall, 534 (12%) had HFpEF or HFmrEF, 422 (9%) had HFrEF or LV dysfunction, and 3,672 (79%) did not have HF. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF had a mean age of 73±9 years, 37% were women, and had a mean LVEF of 57±9%. Over 21±5 months mean follow-up, dronedarone consistently reduced risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.84) without heterogeneity based on HF status (Pinteraction >0.10). This risk reduction in the primary endpoint was consistent across the range of LVEF (as a continuous function) in HF without heterogeneity (Pinteraction =0.71). Rates of death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and HF hospitalization each directionally favored dronedarone vs. placebo in HFpEF and HFmrEF, but these treatment effects were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone is associated with reduced cardiovascular events in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF/AFL and HF across the spectrum of LVEF, including among those with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These data support a rationale for a future dedicated and powered clinical trial to affirm the net clinical benefit of dronedarone in this population

International trends in clinical characteristics and oral anticoagulation treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation: Results from the GARFIELD-AF, ORBIT-AF I, and ORBIT-AF II registries.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the world. We aimed to provide comprehensive data on international patterns of AF stroke prevention treatment. METHODS: Demographics, comorbidities, and stroke risk of the patients in the GARFIELD-AF (n=51,270), ORBIT-AF I (n=10,132), and ORBIT-AF II (n=11,602) registries were compared (overall N=73,004 from 35 countries). Stroke prevention therapies were assessed among patients with new-onset AF (≤6 weeks). RESULTS: Patients from GARFIELD-AF were less likely to be white (63% vs 89% for ORBIT-AF I and 86% for ORBIT-AF II) or have coronary artery disease (19% vs 36% and 27%), but had similar stroke risk (85% CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2 vs 91% and 85%) and lower bleeding risk (11% with HAS-BLED ≥3 vs 24% and 15%). Oral anticoagulant use was 46% and 57% for patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc=0 and 69% and 87% for CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2 in GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF II, respectively, but with substantial geographic heterogeneity in use of oral anticoagulant (range: 31%-93% [GARFIELD-AF] and 66%-100% [ORBIT-AF II]). Among patients with new-onset AF, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant use increased over time to 43% in 2016 for GARFIELD-AF and 71% for ORBIT-AF II, whereas use of antiplatelet monotherapy decreased from 36% to 17% (GARFIELD-AF) and 18% to 8% (ORBIT-AF I and II). CONCLUSIONS: Among new-onset AF patients, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant use has increased and antiplatelet monotherapy has decreased. However, anticoagulation is used frequently in low-risk patients and inconsistently in those at high risk of stroke. Significant geographic variability in anticoagulation persists and represents an opportunity for improvement

Predictors of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries.

BACKGROUND: An unmet need exists to reliably predict the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs). HYPOTHESIS: An externally validated model improves ICH risk stratification. METHODS: Independent factors associated with ICH were identified by Cox proportional hazard modeling, using pooled data from the GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation) and ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registries. A predictive model was developed and validated by bootstrap sampling and by independent data from the Danish National Patient Register. RESULTS: In the combined training data set, 284 of 53 878 anticoagulated patients had ICH over a 2-year period (0.31 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.35). Independent predictors of ICH included: older age, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, concomitant antiplatelet (AP) use, and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were associated with a significantly higher risk of ICH compared with non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.25-2.08; p = .0002). The ability of the model to discriminate individuals in the training set with and without ICH was fair (optimism-corrected C-statistic: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.65-0.71) and outperformed three previously published methods. Calibration between predicted and observed ICH probabilities was good in both training and validation data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Age, prior ischemic events, concomitant AP therapy, and CKD were important risk factors for ICH in anticoagulated AF patients. Moreover, ICH was more frequent in patients receiving VKA compared to NOAC. The new validated model is a step toward mitigating this potentially lethal complication

Managing patients with ICD shocks and programming tachycardia therapies during acute heart failure syndromes

We review the pharmacologic, interventional and device programming treatment options for patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators who present with acute heart failure and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks