Dataset Information

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy may be beneficial to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but little is known about their use in patients with AF and subsequent outcomes.

Methods and results

In order to better understand MRA use and subsequent outcomes, we performed a retrospective cohort study of the contemporary ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registry. AF progression and cardiovascular outcomes were compared using propensity-matched Cox proportional hazards modeling according to MRA use at baseline and new MRA use at follow-up versus patients with no MRA use. Among 7012 patients with nonpermanent AF, 320 patients were taking MRA at enrollment, and 416 patients initiated MRA use during follow-up. The mean patient age was 72.5 years, 56.3% were men, and 70.4% had paroxysmal AF. Among all patients taking MRAs, 434 (59.0%) had heart failure, 655 (89.0%) had hypertension, and 380 (51.6%) had both. After adjustment, new MRA use was not associated with reduced AF progression (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.58; P=0.27) but showed a trend towards lower risk of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.23; P=0.08). Results were similar for a comparison of new MRA users and baseline MRA users compared with nonusers.

Conclusions

In community-based outpatients with AF, the majority of MRA use was for heart failure and hypertension. MRA use also trended towards lower adjusted stroke risk. Future studies should test the hypothesis that MRA use may decrease the risk of stroke in patients with AF.

SUBMITTER: Fudim M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6015424 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) Registry.

Fudim Marat M Liu Peter R PR Shrader Peter P Blanco Rosalia G RG Allen Larry A LA Fonarow Gregg C GC Gersh Bernard J BJ Kowey Peter R PR Mahaffey Kenneth W KW Hylek Elaine E Go Alan S AS Thomas Laine L Peterson Eric D ED Piccini Jonathan P JP

Journal of the American Heart Association 20180413 8

<h4>Background</h4>Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy may be beneficial to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but little is known about their use in patients with AF and subsequent outcomes.<h4>Methods and results</h4>In order to better understand MRA use and subsequent outcomes, we performed a retrospective cohort study of the contemporary ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registry. AF progression and cardiovascular outcomes ...[more]

PMID: 29654203

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTemporary interruption of oral anticoagulation for procedures is often required, and some propose using bridging anticoagulation. However, the use and outcomes of bridging during oral anticoagulation interruptions in clinical practice are unknown.Methods and resultsThe Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry is a prospective, observational registry study of US outpatients with atrial fibrillation. We recorded incident temporary interruptions of oral anticoagulation for a procedure, including the use and type of bridging therapy. Outcomes included multivariable-adjusted rates of myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, cause-specific hospitalization, and death within 30 days. Of 7372 patients treated with oral anticoagulation, 2803 overall interruption events occurred in 2200 patients (30%) at a median follow-up of 2 years. Bridging anticoagulants were used in 24% (n=665), predominantly low-molecular-weight heparin (73%, n=487) and unfractionated heparin (15%, n=97). Bridged patients were more likely to have had prior cerebrovascular events (22% versus 15%; P=0.0003) and mechanical valve replacements (9.6% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001); however, there was no difference in CHA2DS2-VASc scores (scores ≥ 2 in 94% versus 95%; P=0.5). Bleeding events were more common in bridged than nonbridged patients (5.0% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.84; P<0.0001). The incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, hospitalization, or death within 30 days was also significantly higher in patients receiving bridging (13% versus 6.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.94; P=0.0001).ConclusionsBridging anticoagulation is used in one quarter of anticoagulation interruptions and is associated with higher risk for bleeding and adverse events. These data do not support the use of routine bridging, and additional data are needed to identify best practices concerning anticoagulation interruptions.Clinical trial registration urlhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Project description:Whereas insurance status has been previously associated with care patterns, little is currently known about the association between Medicaid insurance and the clinical characteristics, treatment, or outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).We used data from adults with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF), a national outpatient registry conducted at 176 community, multispecialty sites. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients prescribed any oral anticoagulation (OAC; warfarin or novel oral anticoagulants [NOAC]). Secondary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients prescribed NOACs (dabigatran or rivaroxaban); time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin users, all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleed. Of 10 133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) had Medicaid insurance. Medicaid patients were similarly likely to receive OAC at baseline (72.8% vs 76.3%; unadjusted P=0.079), but less likely to receive NOAC at baseline or follow-up (12.1% vs 16.3%; unadjusted P=0.019). After risk adjustment, Medicaid status was associated with lower use of OAC at baseline among patients with high stroke risk (odds ratio [OR]=0.68; 95% CI=0.49, 0.94), but was not associated with OAC use overall (OR=0.82; 95% CI=0.61, 1.09). Among warfarin users, median TTR was lower among Medicaid patients (60% vs 68%; P<0.0001; adjusted TTR difference, -2.9; 95% CI=-5.7, -0.2; P=0.04). Use of an NOAC over 2 years of follow-up was not statistically different by insurance. Compared with non-Medicaid patients, Medicaid patients had higher unadjusted rates of mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding; however, these differences were attenuated following adjustment for clinical characteristics.In a contemporary AF cohort, use of OAC overall and use of NOACs were not significantly lower among Medicaid patients relative to others. However, among warfarin users, Medicaid patients spent less time in therapeutic range compared with those with other forms of insurance.

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) must weigh the benefits of anticoagulation in preventing stroke versus the risk of bleeding. Although empirical models have been developed to predict such risks, the degree to which these coincide with clinicians' estimates is unclear.Methods and resultsWe examined 10 094 AF patients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) registry between June 2010 and August 2011. Empirical stroke and bleeding risks were assessed by using the congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2) and Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores, respectively. Separately, physicians were asked to categorize their patients' stroke and bleeding risks: low risk (<3%); intermediate risk (3%-6%); and high risk (>6%). Overall, 72% (n=7251) in ORBIT-AF had high-risk CHADS2 scores (≥2). However, only 16% were assessed as high stroke risk by physicians. Although 17% (n=1749) had high ATRIA bleeding risk (score ≥5), only 7% (n=719) were considered so by physicians. The associations between empirical and physician-estimated stroke and bleeding risks were low (weighted Kappa 0.1 and 0.11, respectively). Physicians weighed hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus less significantly than empirical models in estimating stroke risk; physicians weighted anemia and dialysis less significantly than empirical models when estimating bleeding risks. Anticoagulation use was highest among patients with high stroke risk, assessed by either empirical model or physician estimates. In contrast, physician and empirical estimates of bleeding had limited impact on treatment choice.ConclusionsThere is little agreement between provider-assessed risk and empirical scores in AF. These differences may explain, in part, the current divergence of anticoagulation treatment decisions from guideline recommendations.Clinical trial registration urlhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Project description:BackgroundNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are indicated for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) but require lower doses in certain patients. We sought to describe the frequency, appropriateness (according to Food and Drug Administration labeling), and outcomes of patients prescribed reduced doses of NOACs in community practice.Methods and resultsWe analyzed data from the ORBIT-AF II (The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II) registry, a prospective, national, observational registry of AF patients. Among 7925 AF patients receiving NOACs, we assessed patterns of use of reduced NOAC doses and associated cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes at median follow-up of 1 year. Overall, 6636 patients (84%) received a NOAC at standard dose, which was consistent with US Food and Drug Administration labeling in 6376 (96%). Reduced NOAC dose was prescribed to 1289 (16% overall), which was consistent with Food and Drug Administration labeling in only 555 patients (43%). Compared with those whose NOAC dose was appropriately reduced, patients receiving inappropriate dose reductions were younger (median age 79 versus 84, P<0.0001) and had lower ORBIT bleeding risk scores (26% ?4 versus 45%, P<0.0001). Compared with those appropriately receiving standard dosing, patients receiving inappropriately reduced-dose NOACs had higher unadjusted rates of thromboembolic events (2.11 versus 1.35 events per 100 patient years, hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 0.92-2.67) and death (6.77 versus 2.60, hazard ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval 1.86-3.67). After adjustment, outcomes were not significantly different but tended to favor patients dosed appropriately.ConclusionsThe majority of dose reductions of NOACs in AF are inconsistent with US Food and Drug Administration recommendations. There appear to be opportunities to improve current NOAC dosing in community practice.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01701817.

Dataset Information

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) Registry.

Background

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) Registry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets