The First Brazilian Cardiovascular Registry of Atrial Fibrillation: Primary Results of the RECALL Study.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 1.5 million people in Brazil; however, epidemiological data are limited. We sought to evaluate the characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes in patients with AF in Brazil by creating the first nationwide prospective registry. METHODS: RECALL was a multicenter, prospective registry that included and followed for 1 year 4,585 patients with AF at 89 sites across Brazil from April 2012 to August 2019. Patient characteristics, concomitant medication use, and clinical outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable models. RESULTS: Of 4,585 patients enrolled, the median age was 70 (61, 78) years, 46% were women, and 53.8% had permanent AF. Only 4.4% of patients had a history of previous AF ablation and 25.2% had a previous cardioversion. The mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.2 (1.6); median HAS-BLED score was 2 (2, 3). At baseline, 22% were not on anticoagulants. Of those taking anticoagulants, 62.6% were taking vitamin K antagonists and 37.4% were taking direct oral anticoagulants. The primary reasons for not using an oral anticoagulant were physician judgment (24.6%) and difficulty in controlling (14.7%) or performing (9.9%) INR. Mean (SD) TTR for the study period was 49.5% (27.5). During follow-up, the use of anticoagulants and INR in the therapeutic range increased to 87.1% and 59.1%, respectively. The rates/100 patient-years of death, hospitalization due to AF, AF ablation, cardioversion, stroke, systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 5.76 (5.12-6.47), 15.8 (14.6-17.0), 5.0 (4.4-5.7), 1.8 (1.4-2.2), 2.77 (2.32-3.32), 1.01 (0.75-1.36), and 2.21 (1.81-2.70). Older age, permanent AF, New York Heart Association class III/IV, chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia were independently associated with increased mortality while the use of anticoagulant was associated with lower risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: RECALL represents the largest prospective registry of patients with AF in Latin America. Our findings highlight important gaps in treatment, which can inform clinical practice and guide future interventions to improve the care of these patients.

Implications for Clinical Practice from a Multicenter Survey of Heart Failure Management Centers.

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Implications for clinical practice from a multicenter survey of heart failure management centers

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.