Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

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

Influence of cardiogenic shock with or without the use of intra-aortic balloon pump on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Cardiogenic shock is a serious complication of a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We compared short- and long-term mortality among (1) STEMI patients with and without cardiogenic shock and (2) STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock with and without the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2010, all patients presenting with STEMI and treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were identified. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounding. The study cohort consisted of 4293 STEMI patients: 286 (6.7%) with and 4007 (93.3%) without cardiogenic shock. Compared with patients without cardiogenic shock, patients with cardiogenic shock were older, and more likely to have diabetes mellitus, multi-vessel disease, anterior myocardial infarction (MI) or bundle-branch block MI and a reduced creatinine clearance. Among patients with cardiogenic shock vs. without shock, 30-day cumulative mortality was 57.3% vs. 4.5% (p < 0.001), one-year cumulative mortality was 60.7% vs. 8.2% (p < 0.001) and five-year mortality was 65.0% vs. 18.9% (p < 0.001). STEMI with cardiogenic shock was associated with higher 30-day mortality (adjusted HR = 12.89 [95% CI: 9.72–16.66]), 1-year mortality (adjusted HR = 8.83 [95% CI: 7.06–11.05]) and five-year mortality (adjusted HR = 6.39 [95% CI: 5.22–7.80]). IABP was used in 71 (25%) patients with cardiogenic shock and was associated with improved 30-day outcome (adjusted HR = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.28–0.83]). Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock had substantial short- and long-term mortality that may be improved with IABP implantation. More studies on use of IABP in such patients are warranted