Dronedarone Versus Sotalol in Antiarrhythmic Drug-Naive Veterans With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Sotalol and dronedarone are both used for maintenance of sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, while sotalol requires initial monitoring for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia, dronedarone does not. These treatments can be used in comparable patients, but their safety and effectiveness have not been compared head to head. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety using data from a large health care system. METHODS: Using Veterans Health Administration data, we identified 11 296 antiarrhythmic drug-naive patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed dronedarone or sotalol in 2012 or later. We excluded patients with prior conduction disease, pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, ventricular arrhythmia, cancer, renal failure, liver disease, or heart failure. We used natural language processing to identify and compare baseline left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment arms. We used 1:1 propensity score matching, based on patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications, and Cox regression to compare strategies. To evaluate residual confounding, we performed falsification analysis with nonplausible outcomes. RESULTS: The matched cohort comprised 6212 patients (3106 dronedarone and 3106 sotalol; mean [±SD] age, 71±10 years; 2.5% female; mean [±SD] CHA2DS2-VASC, 2±1.3). The mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 55±11 and 58±10 for dronedarone and sotalol users, correspondingly. Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, did not demonstrate a significant association with risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.21]) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.68-1.16]). However, dronedarone was associated with significantly lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38-0.74]) and symptomatic bradycardia (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.87]). The primary findings were stable across sensitivity analyses. Falsification analyses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, was associated with a lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events and conduction disorders while having no difference in risk of incident cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. These observational data provide the basis for prospective efficacy and safety trials.

Consumer-Led Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: Frontier Review of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration.

The technological evolution and widespread availability of wearables and handheld ECG devices capable of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF), and their promotion directly to consumers, has focused attention of health care professionals and patient organizations on consumer-led AF screening. In this Frontiers review, members of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration provide a critical appraisal of this rapidly evolving field to increase awareness of the complexities and uncertainties surrounding consumer-led AF screening. Although there are numerous commercially available devices directly marketed to consumers for AF monitoring and identification of unrecognized AF, health care professional-led randomized controlled studies using multiple ECG recordings or continuous ECG monitoring to detect AF have failed to demonstrate a significant reduction in stroke. Although it remains uncertain if consumer-led AF screening reduces stroke, it could increase early diagnosis of AF and facilitate an integrated approach, including appropriate anticoagulation, rate or rhythm management, and risk factor modification to reduce complications. Companies marketing AF screening devices should report the accuracy and performance of their products in high- and low-risk populations and avoid claims about clinical outcomes unless improvement is demonstrated in randomized clinical trials. Generally, the diagnostic yield of AF screening increases with the number, duration, and temporal dispersion of screening sessions, but the prognostic importance may be less than for AF detected by single-time point screening, which is largely permanent, persistent, or high-burden paroxysmal AF. Consumer-initiated ECG recordings suggesting possible AF always require confirmation by a health care professional experienced in ECG reading, whereas suspicion of AF on the basis of photoplethysmography must be confirmed with an ECG. Consumer-led AF screening is unlikely to be cost-effective for stroke prevention in the predominantly young, early adopters of this technology. Studies in older people at higher stroke risk are required to demonstrate both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The direct interaction between companies and consumers creates new regulatory gaps in relation to data privacy and the registration of consumer apps and devices. Although several barriers for optimal use of consumer-led screening exist, results of large, ongoing trials, powered to detect clinical outcomes, are required before health care professionals should support widespread adoption of consumer-led AF screening.

Cardiovascular procedural deferral and outcomes over COVID-19 pandemic phases: A multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations. METHODS: Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across 6 Western states in 2 large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in 2 distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15-April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (P = .0003), older (P < .0001), Asian or Black (P = .02), or Medicare insured (P < .0001), and COVID I procedures were higher acuity (P < .0001), but not higher complexity. In COVID II, there was a trend toward more procedural deferral in regions with a higher COVID-19 burden (P = .05). Compared to pre-COVID, there were no differences in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality during both COVID phases. CONCLUSIONS: Significant decreases in cardiovascular procedural volumes occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts by race, gender, and age. These findings should inform our approach to future healthcare disruptions.

Research Priorities in Atrial Fibrillation Screening: A Report From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Virtual Workshop.

Clinically recognized atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of complications, including ischemic stroke, cognitive decline, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death. It is increasingly recognized that AF frequently is undetected until complications such as stroke or heart failure occur. Hence, the public and clinicians have an intense interest in detecting AF earlier. However, the most appropriate strategies to detect undiagnosed AF (sometimes referred to as subclinical AF) and the prognostic and therapeutic implications of AF detected by screening are uncertain. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's virtual workshop focused on identifying key research priorities related to AF screening. Global experts reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified critical research priorities in the following areas: (1) role of opportunistic screening; (2) AF as a risk factor, risk marker, or both; (3) relationship between AF burden detected with long-term monitoring and outcomes/treatments; (4) designs of potential randomized trials of systematic AF screening with clinically relevant outcomes; and (5) role of AF screening after ischemic stroke. Our report aims to inform and catalyze AF screening research that will advance innovative, resource-efficient, and clinically relevant studies in diverse populations to improve the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of patients with undiagnosed AF.

Procedure characteristics and outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation procedures using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation: A report from the GWTG-AFIB registry.

INTRODUCTION: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is an alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and real-world comparisons of this strategy are lacking. As such, we sought to compare patient and periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of CBA versus RFA in the Get With the Guidelines AFIB Registry. METHODS: Categorical variables were compared via the χ2 test and continuous variables were compared via the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Adjusted analyses were performed using overlap weighting of propensity scores. RESULTS: A total of 5247 (1465 CBA, 3782 RFA) ablation procedures were reported from 33 sites. Those undergoing CBA more often had paroxysmal AF (60.0% vs. 48.8%) and no prior AF ablation (87.5% vs. 73.8%). CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores were similar. Among de novo ablations, most ablations involved intracardiac echocardiography and electroanatomic mapping, but both were less common with CBA (87.3% vs. 93.9%, p < .0001, and 87.7% vs. 94.6%, p < .0001, respectively). CBA was associated with shorter procedures (129 vs. 179 min, p < .0001), increased fluoroscopy use (19 vs. 11 min, p < .0001), and similar ablation times (27 vs. 35 min, p = .15). Nonpulmonary vein ablation was common with CBA: roof line 38.6%, floor line 20.4%, cavotricuspid isthmus 27.7%. RFA was associated with more total complications compared to CBA (5.4% vs. 2.3%, p < .0001), due to more volume overload and "other" events, although phrenic nerve injury was more common with CBA (0.9% vs 0.1%, p = .0001). In the adjusted model, any complication was less common among CBA cases (odds ratio, 0.45; confidence interval, 0.25-0.79, p = .0056). CONCLUSION: CBA was associated with fewer complications, and shorter procedure times, and greater fluoroscopy times, compared to RFA. Nonpulmonary vein ablation and electroanatomic mapping system use was common with CBA.

Procedural Patterns and Safety of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Findings From Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is an increasingly used treatment for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are limited prospective, nationwide data on patient selection and procedural characteristics. This study describes patient characteristics, techniques, treatment patterns, and safety outcomes of patients undergoing AF ablation. METHODS: A total of 3139 patients undergoing AF ablation between 2016 and 2018 in the Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation registry from 24 US centers were included. Patient demographics, medical history, procedural details, and complications were abstracted. Differences between paroxysmal and patients with persistent AF were compared using Pearson χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Patients undergoing AF ablation were predominantly male (63.9%) and White (93.2%) with a median age of 65. Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (67.6%), and patients with persistent AF had more comorbidities than patients with paroxysmal AF. Drug refractory, paroxysmal AF was the most common ablation indication (class I, 53.6%) followed by drug refractory, persistent AF (class I, 41.8%). Radiofrequency ablation with contact force sensing was the most common ablation modality (70.5%); 23.7% of patients underwent cryoballoon ablation. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in 94.6% of de novo ablations; the most common adjunctive lesions included left atrial roof or posterior/inferior lines, and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. Complications were uncommon (5.1%) and were life-threatening in 0.7% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: More than 98% of AF ablations among participating sites are performed for class I or class IIA indications. Contact force-guided radiofrequency ablation is the dominant technique and pulmonary vein isolation the principal lesion set. In-hospital complications are uncommon and rarely life-threatening.

Accuracy of Smartphone Camera Applications for Detecting Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects more than 6 million people in the United States; however, much AF remains undiagnosed. Given that more than 265 million people in the United States own smartphones (>80% of the population), smartphone applications have been proposed for detecting AF, but the accuracy of these applications remains unclear. Objective: To determine the accuracy of smartphone camera applications that diagnose AF. Data Sources and Study Selection: MEDLINE and Embase were searched until January 2019 for studies that assessed the accuracy of any smartphone applications that use the smartphone's camera to measure the amplitude and frequency of the user's fingertip pulse to diagnose AF. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were constructed to synthesize data. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity and specificity were measured with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. To simulate the use of these applications as a screening tool, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for different population groups (ie, age ≥65 years and age ≥65 years with hypertension) were modeled. Lastly, the association of methodological limitations with outcomes were analyzed with sensitivity analyses and metaregressions. Results: A total of 10 primary diagnostic accuracy studies, with 3852 participants and 4 applications, were included. The oldest studies were published in 2016 (2 studies [20.0%]), while most studies (4 [40.0%]) were published in 2018. The applications analyzed the pulsewave signal for a mean (range) of 2 (1-5) minutes. The meta-analyzed sensitivity and specificity for all applications combined were 94.2% (95% CI, 92.2%-95.7%) and 95.8% (95% CI, 92.4%-97.7%), respectively. The PPV for smartphone camera applications detecting AF in an asymptomatic population aged 65 years and older was between 19.3% (95% CI, 19.2%-19.4%) and 37.5% (95% CI, 37.4%-37.6%), and the NPV was between 99.8% (95% CI, 99.83%-99.84%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.94%-99.95%). The PPV and NPV increased for individuals aged 65 years and older with hypertension (PPV, 20.5% [95% CI, 20.4%-20.6%] to 39.2% [95% CI, 39.1%-39.3%]; NPV, 99.8% [95% CI, 99.8%-99.8%] to 99.9% [95% CI, 99.9%-99.9%]). There were methodological limitations in a number of studies that did not appear to be associated with diagnostic performance, but this could not be definitively excluded given the sparsity of the data. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, all smartphone camera applications had relatively high sensitivity and specificity. The modeled NPV was high for all analyses, but the PPV was modest, suggesting that using these applications in an asymptomatic population may generate a higher number of false-positive than true-positive results. Future research should address the accuracy of these applications when screening other high-risk population groups, their ability to help monitor chronic AF, and, ultimately, their associations with patient-important outcomes.

Site Variation and Outcomes for Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) require multiple antithrombotic therapies. The optimal strategy is debated suggesting increased treatment variation. This study sought to characterize site-level variation in antithrombotic therapies in AF patients after PCI and determine the association with outcomes. METHODS: Using the retrospective TREAT-AF study (The Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF) from the Veterans Health Administration, patients with newly diagnosed, nonvalvular AF between 2004 and 2015 followed by a PCI with a P2Y12-antagonist prescription were identified. Patients were grouped according to the therapy dispensed 7 days before until 30 days after the PCI: oral anticoagulation plus platelet inhibition (OAC+PI) or platelet inhibition only. A combined outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding was assessed 1 year after PCI and Cox regression was performed to estimate hazard ratios. RESULTS: Of 230 762 patients with newly diagnosed AF, 4042 (1.8%) underwent PCI and received a P2Y12-antagonist during the observation period (age, 67±9 years; CHA2DS2-VASc, 2.7±1.7; HAS-BLED, 2.6±1.2). Among these, 47% were prescribed OAC+PI, and 53% platelet inhibition only 7 days before until 30 days after the PCI. Across 63 sites, the use of OAC+PI ranged from 19% to 66%. Prescription of OAC+PI was independently associated with a reduction in the combined outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding compared with platelet inhibition only (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.99; P=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with established AF undergoing PCI, the use of OAC+PI varied substantially across sites in the 30 days post-PCI. Anticoagulation appeared to be underutilized but was associated with improved outcomes. Strategies to promote OAC+PI and minimize site variation may be useful, particularly in light of recent randomized trials.