Background

Racial and ethnic minorities are under-represented in clinical trials of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). This analysis investigates the association between primary prevention ICDs and mortality among Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients.

Methods and results

Data from Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry and National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry were used to perform an adjusted comparative effectiveness analysis of primary prevention ICDs in Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients (nonwhite race or Hispanic ethnicity). Mortality data were obtained from the Medicare denominator file. The relationship of ICD with survival was compared between minority and white non-Hispanic patients. Our analysis included 852 minority patients, 426 ICD and 426 matched non-ICD patients, and 2070 white non-Hispanic patients (1035 ICD and 1035 matched non-ICD patients). Median follow-up was 3.1 years. Median age was 73 years, and median ejection fraction was 23%. Adjusted 3-year mortality rates for minority ICD and non-ICD patients were 44.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.2%-45.7%) and 54.3% (95% CI, 53.4%-55.1%), respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98; P=0.034). White non-Hispanic patients receiving an ICD had lower adjusted 3-year mortality rates of 47.8% (95% CI, 47.3%-48.3%) compared with 57.3% (95% CI, 56.8%-57.9%) for those with no ICD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67%-0.83%; P<0.0001). There was no significant interaction between race/ethnicity and lower mortality risk with ICD (P=0.70).

Conclusions

Primary prevention ICDs are associated with lower mortality in nonwhite and Hispanic patients, similar to that seen in white, non-Hispanic patients. These data support a similar approach to ICD patient selection, regardless of race or ethnicity.

Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has evolved in recent years, especially in patients with ischemic heart disease. Data from prospective studies show that VT catheter ablation reduces the risk of recurrent VT; however, there is a paucity of data on the effect of VT catheter ablation on mortality and patient-centered outcomes such as quality of life. Performing randomized clinical trials of VT catheter ablation can be fraught with challenges, and, as a result, several prior trials of VT catheter ablation had to be stopped prematurely. The main challenges are inability to blind the patient to therapy to obtain a traditional control group, high crossover rates between the 2 arms of the study, patient refusal to participate in trials in which they have an equal chance of receiving a "pill" vs an invasive procedure, heterogeneity of mapping and ablation techniques as well as catheters and equipment, rapid evolution of technology that may make findings of any long trial less relevant to clinical practice, lack of consensus on what constitutes acute procedural and long-term success, and presentation of patients to electrophysiologists late in the course of their disease. In this article, a panel of experts on VT catheter ablation and/or clinical trials of VT catheter ablation review challenges faced in conducting prior trials of VT catheter ablation and offer potential solutions for those challenges. It is hoped that the proposed solutions will enhance the feasibility of randomized clinical trials of VT catheter ablation.

Aims

To determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods and results

We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP's recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75-3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50-3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively].

Conclusion

Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions.

Background

Although digoxin has long been used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF), its safety remains controversial.

Objectives

This study sought to describe digoxin use over time in patients with AF who were stratified by the presence or absence of HF, to characterize the predictors of digoxin use and initiation, and to correlate digoxin use with outcomes.

Methods

Longitudinal patterns of digoxin use and its association with a variety of outcomes were assessed in a prospective outpatient registry conducted at 174 U.S. sites with enrollment from June 2010 to August 2011.

Results

Among 9,619 patients with AF and serial follow-up every 6 months for up to 3 years, 2,267 (23.6%) received digoxin at study enrollment, 681 (7.1%) were initiated on digoxin during follow-up, and 6,671 (69.4%) were never prescribed digoxin. After adjusting for other medications, heart rate was 72.9 beats/min among digoxin users and 71.5 beats/min among nonusers (p < 0.0001). Prevalent digoxin use at registry enrollment was not associated with subsequent onset of symptoms, hospitalization, or mortality (in patients with HF, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for death: 1.04; without HF, HR: 1.22). Incident digoxin use during follow-up was not associated with subsequent death in patients with HF (propensity adjusted HR: 1.05), but was associated with subsequent death in those without HF (propensity adjusted HR: 1.99).

Conclusions

After adjustment for detailed clinical factors, digoxin use in registry patients with AF had a neutral association with outcomes under most circumstances. Because of the multiple conflicting observational reports about digoxin's safety and possible concerns in specific clinical situations, a large pragmatic trial of digoxin therapy in AF is needed.

Background Chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) is a common comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation. The presence of CKD complicates drug selection for stroke prevention and rhythm control. Methods and Results Patients enrolled in ORBIT AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) with baseline renal function and follow-up data were included (N=9019). CKD was defined as an estimated creatinine clearance <60 mL /min. Patient characteristics were compared by CKD status, and Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to examine the association between oral anticoagulant ( OAC ) use and outcomes and antiarrhythmic drug use and outcomes stratified by CKD stages. At enrollment, 3490 (39%) patients had an estimated creatinine clearance <60 mL /min. Patients with CKD were older and had higher CHA ₂ DS ₂ VAS c and Anticoagulant and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores. A rhythm control strategy was selected less frequently in patients with CKD , while OAC use was lower among Stage IV and V CKD patients. After adjustment, no significant interaction was noted for OAC and CKD on all-cause mortality ( P=0.5442) or cardiovascular death ( P=0.1233), although a trend for increased major bleeding ( P=0.0608) and stroke, systemic embolism or transient ischemic attack ( P=0.0671) was observed. No interaction was noted for antiarrhythmic drug use and CKD status on all-cause mortality ( P=0.9706), or stroke, systemic embolism or transient ischemic attack ( P=0.4218). Conclusions Patients with atrial fibrillation and CKD are less likely to be treated with rhythm control. Patients with advanced CKD are less likely to receive OAC . Finally, outcomes with OAC in patients with advanced CKD may be materially different with higher rates of both bleeding and stroke.