Contemporary management of atrial fibrillation in primary and secondary care in the UK: the prospective long-term AF-GEN-UK Registry

AIMS

This study established a prospective registry of contemporary management of UK patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by cardiologists, general practitioners, and stroke, acute, and emergency medicine physicians at baseline and 1-year follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data on patients with recently diagnosed AF (≤12 months) were collected from medical records from 101 UK sites to permit comparison of patient characteristics and treatments between specialities. The impact of guideline-adherent oral anticoagulation (OAC) use on outcomes was assessed using Cox regression analysis. One thousand five hundred and ninety-five AF patients [mean (standard deviation) age 70.5 (11.2) years; 60.1% male; 97.4% white] were recruited in June 2017-June 2018 and followed up for 1 year. Overall OAC prescription rates were 84.2% at baseline and 87.1% at 1 year, with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) predominating (74.9 and 79.2% at baseline and 1 year, respectively). Vitamin K antagonist prescription was significantly higher in primary care, with NOAC prescription higher among stroke physicians. Guideline-adherent OAC (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) at baseline significantly reduced risk of death and stroke at 1 year [adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.48 (0.27-0.84) and 0.11 (0.02-0.48), respectively]. Rhythm control is evident in ∼25%; only 1.6% received catheter ablation.

CONCLUSION

High OAC use (>80%, mainly NOACs) rates varied by speciality, with VKA prescription higher in primary care. Guideline-adherent OAC therapy at baseline was associated with significant reduction in death and stroke at 1 year, regardless of speciality. Rhythm-control management is evident in only one-quarter despite AF symptoms reported in 56.6%. This registry extends the knowledge of contemporary AF management outside cardiology and demonstrates good implementation of clinical guidelines for the management of AF, particularly for stroke prevention.

Nurse-led vs. usual-care for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Nurse-led integrated care is expected to improve outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation compared with usual-care provided by a medical specialist.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We randomized 1375 patients with atrial fibrillation (64 ± 10 years, 44% women, 57% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2) to receive nurse-led care or usual-care. Nurse-led care was provided by specialized nurses using a decision-support tool, in consultation with the cardiologist. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and cardiovascular hospital admissions. Of 671 nurse-led care patients, 543 (81%) received anticoagulation in full accordance with the guidelines against 559 of 683 (82%) usual-care patients. The cumulative adherence to guidelines-based recommendations was 61% under nurse-led care and 26% under usual-care. Over 37 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 164 of 671 patients (9.7% per year) under nurse-led care and in 192 of 683 patients (11.6% per year) under usual-care [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.04, P = 0.12]. There were 124 vs. 161 hospitalizations for arrhythmia events (7.0% and 9.4% per year), and 14 vs. 22 for heart failure (0.7% and 1.1% per year), respectively. Results were not consistent in a pre-specified subgroup analysis by centre experience, with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.37-to 0.71) in four experienced centres and of 1.24 (95% CI 0.94-1.63) in four less experienced centres (P for interaction <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our trial failed to show that nurse-led care was superior to usual-care. The data suggest that nurse-led care by an experienced team could be clinically beneficial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01740037).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740037).

Optimization of atrial fibrillation care: management strategies and quality measures

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and a leading cause of mortality and morbidity. Optimal management of AF is paramount to improve quality of life and reduce the impact on health and social care services. Owing to its strong associations with other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities, a holistic management approach to AF care is advocated but this is yet to be clearly defined by international clinical guidelines. This ambiguity has prompted us to review the available clinical evidence on different management strategies to optimize AF care in the context of performance and quality measures, which can be used to objectively assess standards of care.