Search

Background: A recent subanalysis of the EAST-AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial) suggests a stronger benefit of early rhythm control (ERC) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high comorbidity burden when compared to patients with a lower comorbidity burden., Methods: We identified 109 739 patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in a large United States deidentified administrative claims database (OptumLabs) and 11 625 patients in the population-based UKB (UK Biobank). ERC was defined as atrial fibrillation ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy within the first year after atrial fibrillation diagnosis. Patients were classified as (1) ERC and high comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥4); (2) ERC and lower comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 2-3); (3) no ERC and high comorbidity burden; and (4) no ERC and lower comorbidity burden. Patients without an elevated comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 0-1) were excluded. Propensity score overlap weighting and cox proportional hazards regression were used to balance patients and compare groups for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction as well as for a primary composite safety outcome of death, stroke, and serious adverse events related to ERC., Results: In both cohorts, ERC was associated with a reduced risk for the primary composite outcome in patients with a high comorbidity burden (OptumLabs: hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI 0.72-0.95]; P =0.006; UKB: hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.94]; P =0.009). In patients with a lower comorbidity burden, the difference in outcomes was not significant (OptumLabs: hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.54-1.57]; P =0.767; UKB: hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.83-1.06]; P =0.310). The comorbidity burden interacted with ERC in the UKB (interaction- P =0.027) but not in OptumLabs (interaction- P =0.720). ERC was not associated with an increased risk for the primary safety outcome., Conclusions: ERC is safe and may be more favorable in a population-based sample of patients with high a comorbidity burden (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥4)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Kirchhof is listed as inventor on 2 patents held by University of Birmingham (Atrial Fibrillation Therapy WO 2015140571, Markers for Atrial Fibrillation WO 2016012783). Dr Kirchhof receives research support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from European Union, British Heart Foundation, Leducq Foundation, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), and German Center for Cardiovascular Research, from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation and has received honoraria from several such companies in the past, but not in the last 3 years. Dr Rillig received consultant fees from Medtronic, KODEX-EPD, Biosense Webster and travel grants and lecture fees from Medtronic, Cardiofocus, Biosense Webster, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Philips KODEX-EPD, Ablamap, Bayer and Novartis. Dr Noseworthy is a study investigator in an ablation trial sponsored by Medtronic. Dr Noseworthy and Mayo Clinic are involved in potential equity/royalty relationship with AliveCor. Dr Noseworthy has served on an expert advisory panel for OptumLabs. Dr Noseworthy and Mayo Clinic have filed patents related to the application of AI to the ECG for diagnosis and risk stratification. Dr Ellinor has received sponsored research support from Bayer AG and IBM Research and he has served on advisory boards or consulted for Bayer AG, MyoKardia, and Novartis. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background EAST-AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial) demonstrated clinical benefit of early rhythm-control therapy (ERC) in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant cardiovascular conditions compared with current guideline-based practice. This study aimed to evaluate the generalizability of EAST-AFNET 4 in routine practice. Methods and Results Using a US administrative database, we identified 109 739 patients with newly diagnosed AF during the enrollment period of EAST-AFNET 4. Patients were classified as either receiving ERC, using AF ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy, within the first year after AF diagnosis (n=27 106) or not receiving ERC (control group, n=82 633). After propensity score overlap weighting, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare groups for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, or hospitalization with the diagnoses heart failure or myocardial infarction. Most patients (79 948 of 109 739; 72.9%) met the inclusion criteria for EAST-AFNET 4. ERC was associated with a reduced risk for the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97 [ P =0.02]) with largely consistent results between eligible (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76-1.04 [ P =0.14]) or ineligible (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98 [ P =0.04]) patients for EAST-AFNET 4 trial inclusion. ERC was associated with lower risk of stroke in the overall cohort and in trial-eligible patients. Conclusions This analysis replicates the clinical benefit of ERC seen in EAST-AFNET 4. The results support adoption of ERC as part of the management of recently diagnosed AF in the United States.