Association of Atrial Fibrillation Burden and Mortality Among Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

BACKGROUND: Current estimates of atrial fibrillation (AF)-associated mortality rely on claims- or clinical-derived diagnoses of AF, limit AF to a binary entity, or are confounded by comorbidities. The objective of the present study is to assess the association between device-recognized AF and mortality among patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices capable of sensitive and continuous atrial arrhythmia detection. Secondary outcomes include relative mortality among cohorts with no AF, paroxysmal AF, persistent AF, and permanent AF. METHODS: Using the deidentified Optum Clinformatics US claims database (2015 to 2020) linked to the Medtronic CareLink database, we identified individuals with a cardiac implantable electronic device who transmitted data ≥6 months after implantation. AF burden was assessed during the first 6 months after implantation (baseline period). Subsequent mortality, assessed from claims data, was compared between patients with and without AF, with adjustment for age, geographic region, insurance type, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and implantation year. RESULTS: Of 21 391 patients (age, 72.9±10.9 years; 56.3% male) analyzed, 7798 (36.5%) had device-recognized AF. During a mean of 22.4±12.9 months (median, 20.1 [12.8-29.7] months) of follow-up, the overall incidence of mortality was 13.5%. Patients with AF had higher adjusted all-cause mortality than patients without AF (hazard ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20-1.39]; P<0.001). Among those with AF, patients with nonparoxysmal AF had the greatest risk of mortality (persistent AF versus paroxysmal AF: hazard ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.18-1.58]; P<.001; permanent AF versus paroxysmal AF: hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.14-1.34]; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for potential confounding factors, the presence of AF was associated with higher mortality in our cohort of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Among those with AF, nonparoxysmal AF was associated with the greatest risk of mortality.

Impact of Atrial Fibrillation Burden on Health Care Costs and Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Integrating patient-specific cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) burden with measures of health care cost and utilization allows for an accurate assessment of the AF-related impact on health care use. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the incremental cost of device-recognized AF vs no AF; compare relative costs of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF), persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF), and permanent atrial fibrillation (PermAF) AF; and evaluate rates and sources of health care utilization between cohorts. METHODS: Using the de-identified Optum Clinformatics U.S. claims database (2015-2020) linked with the Medtronic CareLink database, CIED patients were identified who transmitted data ≥6 months postimplantation. Annualized per-patient costs in follow-up were analyzed from insurance claims and adjusted to 2020 U.S. dollars. Costs and rates of health care utilization were compared between patients with no AF and those with device-recognized pAF, PeAF, and PermAF. Analyses were adjusted for geographical region, insurance type, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and implantation year. RESULTS: Of 21,391 patients (mean age 72.9 ± 10.9 years; 56.3% male) analyzed, 7,798 (36.5%) had device-recognized AF. The incremental annualized increased cost in those with AF was $12,789 ± $161,749 per patient, driven by increased rates of health care encounters, adverse clinical events associated with AF, and AF-specific interventions. Among those with AF, PeAF was associated with the highest cost, driven by increased rates of inpatient and outpatient hospitalization encounters, heart failure hospitalizations, and AF-specific interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of device-recognized AF was associated with increased health care cost. Among those with AF, patients with PeAF had the highest health care costs. Mechanisms for cost differentials include both disease-specific consequences and physician-directed interventions.