TY - JOUR
T1 - Temporal trends in the management practices of clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation after noncardiac surgery
AU - Wang, Michael Ke
AU - Devereaux, P J
AU - Marcucci, Maura
AU - Lomivorotov, Vladimir
AU - Sessler, Daniel I.
AU - Chan, Matthew T V
AU - Borges, Flavia K.
AU - Ofori, Sandra N.
AU - Paniagua, Pilar
AU - Douketis, James D.
AU - Sigamani, Alben
AU - Parlow, Joel L
AU - Wang, Chew Y.
AU - Villar, Juan Carlos
AU - Srinathan, Sadeesh K.
AU - Szczeklik, Wojciech
AU - Martínez-Zapata, María José
AU - Malaga, German
AU - Sivakumaran, Soori
AU - McIntyre, William F
AU - Funes, María-Virginia Rodríguez
AU - Cruz, Patricia
AU - Alvarez-Garcia, Jesús
AU - Pharm, Isabelle Greiss B.
AU - Popova, Ekaterine
AU - Hemels, Martin E.
AU - Brandes, Axel
AU - Chow, Clara K.
AU - Barnawal, Satish Prasad
AU - Healey, Jeff S
AU - Conen, David
PY - 2024/11
Y1 - 2024/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1016/j.cjco.2024.08.003
DO - 10.1016/j.cjco.2024.08.003
M3 - Journal article
SN - 2589-790X
VL - 6
SP - 1363
EP - 1371
JO - CJC Open
JF - CJC Open
IS - 11
ER -