Temporal trends in the management practices of clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation after noncardiac surgery

Michael Ke Wang, P J Devereaux, Maura Marcucci, Vladimir Lomivorotov, Daniel I. Sessler, Matthew T V Chan, Flavia K. Borges, Sandra N. Ofori, Pilar Paniagua, James D. Douketis, Alben Sigamani, Joel L Parlow, Chew Y. Wang, Juan Carlos Villar, Sadeesh K. Srinathan, Wojciech Szczeklik, María José Martínez-Zapata, German Malaga, Soori Sivakumaran, William F McIntyreMaría-Virginia Rodríguez Funes, Patricia Cruz, Jesús Alvarez-Garcia, Isabelle Greiss B. Pharm, Ekaterine Popova, Martin E. Hemels, Axel Brandes, Clara K. Chow, Satish Prasad Barnawal, Jeff S Healey, David Conen

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common cardiac complication after noncardiac surgery. Little is known about how patients with POAF are managed acutely and whether practices have changed over time. Methods: We conducted an observational substudy of patients who had POAF, were at elevated cardiovascular risk, and were enrolled in the PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-1, 2 and 3 trials between 2002 and 2021. POAF was defined as new, clinically important atrial fibrillation occurring within 30 days after surgery. We assessed the use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment in response to POAF, at hospital discharge and at 30 days after surgery. We assessed for temporal trends using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of the 27,896 patients included, 545 (1.9%) developed clinically important POAF. Patients received rhythm-control treatment in 48.6% of cases. The level of use of rhythm-control treatment increased over the course of the trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3; 40.9% vs 49.5% vs 59.1%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of rhythm-control treatment (odds ratio, 1.05 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.09). Anticoagulation treatment was prescribed in 21% of POAF cases. The level of anticoagulation treatement use was higher in POISE-3, compared to that in the 2 previous trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3—16.4% vs 16.5% vs 33.6%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of anticoagulation treatment (odds ratio, 1.06 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11). Conclusions: Despite the absence of randomized controlled trials, the level of use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment for POAF is rising. High-quality trials are needed urgently to determine whether these interventions are safe and effective in this population.

Original languageEnglish
JournalCJC Open
Volume6
Issue number11
Pages (from-to)1363-1371
ISSN2589-790X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Temporal trends in the management practices of clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation after noncardiac surgery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this