Patients and Their Physician's Perspectives About Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Not Receiving an Anticoagulant.

Importance: The underuse of oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major issue that is not well understood. Objective: To understand the lack of anticoagulation by assessing the perceptions of patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation and their physician's about the risk of stroke and the benefits and risks of anticoagulation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more (calculated as congestive heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years and older, diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, and sex category) who were not receiving anticoagulation and were enrolled from 19 sites within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry (PINNACLE Registry) between January 18, 2017, and May 7, 2018. Data were collected from January 18, 2017, to September 30, 2019, and analyzed from April 2022 to March 2023. Exposure: Each patient enrolled in the study completed a survey, and their treating physician then conducted a clinical review of their care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Assessment of willingness for anticoagulation treatment and its appropriateness after central review by a panel of 4 cardiologists. Use of anticoagulation at 1 year follow-up was compared vs similar patients at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry. Results: Of the 817 patients enrolled, the median (IQR) age was 76.0 (69.0-83.0) years, 369 (45.2%) were women, and the median (IQR) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.0 (3.0-6.0). The top 5 reasons physicians cited for no anticoagulation were low AF burden or successful rhythm control (278 [34.0%]), patient refusal (272 [33.3%]), perceived low risk of stroke (206 [25.2%]), fall risk (175 [21.4%]), and high bleeding risk (167 [20.4%]). After rereview, 221 physicians (27.1%) would reconsider prescribing oral anticoagulation as compared with 311 patients (38.1%), including 67 (24.6%) whose physician cited patient refusal. Of 647 patients (79.2%) adjudicated as appropriate or may be appropriate for anticoagulation, physicians would reconsider anticoagulation for only 177 patients (21.2%), while 527 patients (64.5%) would either agree to starting anticoagulation (311 [38.1%]) or were neutral (216 [27.3%]) to starting anticoagulation. Upon follow-up, 119 patients (14.6%) in the BOAT-AF study were prescribed anticoagulation, as compared with 55 879 of 387 975 similar patients (14.4%) at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation are more willing to consider anticoagulation than their physicians. These data emphasize the need to revisit any prior decision against anticoagulation in a shared decision-making manner.

Supporting health equity for First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

The National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health (NCCIH) is unique among the National Collaborating Centres as the only centre focused on the health of a population. In this fifth article of the Canada Communicable Disease Report's series on the National Collaborating Centres and their contribution to Canada's public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we describe the work of the NCCIH. We begin with a brief overview of the NCCIH's mandate and priority areas, describing how it works, who it serves and how it has remained flexible and responsive to evolving Indigenous public health needs. Key knowledge translation and exchange activities undertaken by the NCCIH to address COVID-19 misinformation and to support the timely use of Indigenous-informed evidence and knowledge in public health decision-making during the pandemic are also discussed, with a focus on acting on lessons learned moving forward.

A Prospective Randomized Trial of Apixaban Dosing During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: The AEIOU Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether uninterrupted apixaban would have similar rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events as does minimally interrupted apixaban at the time of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and to compare those results with rates in historical patients treated with uninterrupted warfarin. BACKGROUND: The safety, efficacy, and optimal dosing regimen for apixaban at the time of AF ablation are uncertain. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter clinical trial enrolled 306 patients undergoing catheter ablation for nonvalvular AF and randomized 300 to uninterrupted versus minimally interrupted (holding 1 dose) periprocedural apixaban. A retrospective cohort of patients treated with uninterrupted warfarin at the same centers was matched to the apixaban-treated subjects for comparison. Endpoints included clinically significant bleeding, major bleeding, and nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism (SE) from the time of ablation through 30 days. RESULTS: There were no stroke or SE events. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 11.3% of 150 evaluable patients on uninterrupted apixaban and 9.7% of 145 evaluable patients on interrupted apixaban (risk difference: 1.7% [95% confidence interval: -5.5% to 8.8%]; p = NS). Rates of major bleeding were 1.3% with uninterrupted apixaban, and 2.1% with interrupted (risk difference: -0.7%; p = NS). The rates of clinically significant and major bleeding were similar for all apixaban patients combined (10.5% and 1.7%), compared with the matched warfarin group (9.8% and 1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Both uninterrupted and minimally interrupted apixaban at the time of AF ablation were associated with a very low rate of thromboembolic events, and rates of both major (<2%) and clinically significant bleeding were similar to uninterrupted warfarin. (Apixaban Evaluation of Interrupted Or Uninterrupted Anticoagulation for Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation [AEIOU]; NCT02608099).

Lack of suppression of circulating free fatty acids and hypercholesterolemia during weight loss on a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the comparative effect of weight-loss diets on metabolic profiles during dieting. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of a low-carbohydrate diet (< or =20 g/d) with a high-carbohydrate diet (55% of total energy intake) on fasting and hourly metabolic variables during active weight loss. DESIGN: Healthy, obese adults (n = 32; 22 women, 10 men) were randomly assigned to receive either a carbohydrate-restricted diet [High Fat; mean +/- SD body mass index (BMI; in kg/m(2)): 35.8 +/- 2.9] or a calorie-restricted, low-fat diet (High Carb; BMI: 36.7 +/- 4.6) for 6 wk. A 24-h in-patient feeding study was performed at baseline and after 6 wk. Glucose, insulin, free fatty acids (FFAs), and triglycerides were measured hourly during meals, at regimented times. Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol was measured every 4 h. RESULTS: Patients lost a similar amount of weight in both groups (P = 0.57). There was an absence of any diet treatment effect between groups on fasting triglycerides or on remnant lipoprotein cholesterol, which was the main outcome. Fasting insulin decreased (P = 0.03), and both fasting (P = 0.040) and 24-h FFAs (P < 0.0001) increased within the High Fat group. Twenty-four-hour insulin decreased (P < 0.05 for both groups). Fasting LDL cholesterol decreased in the High Carb group only (P = 0.003). In both groups, the differences in fasting and 24-h FFAs at 6 wk were significantly correlated with the change in LDL cholesterol (fasting FFA: r = 0.41, P = 0.02; 24-h FFA: r = 0.52, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss was similar between diets, but only the high-fat diet increased LDL-cholesterol concentrations. This effect was related to the lack of suppression of both fasting and 24-h FFAs.

The metabolic syndrome and inflammation.

The metabolic syndrome (MS) is a clustering of cardiovascular risk factors, with insulin resistance as a major feature. This syndrome has been variously defined, but generally consists of 3 or more of the following components: hyperglycemia, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, low HDL, and increased abdominal circumference and/or BMI at >30 kg/m(2). The WHO criteria require the presence of insulin resistance to make the diagnosis. The current review focuses particularly on the association of the MS and the proinflammatory state as well as treatment options to prevent the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). Chronic inflammation is frequently associated with the MS. Inflammatory markers that have been associated with MS include hs-CRP, TNF-alpha, fibrinogen, and IL-6, among others. The link between inflammation and the MS is not fully understood. One postulated mechanism is that these cytokines are released into the circulation by adipose tissue, stimulating hepatic CRP production. The prothrombotic molecule PAI-1 is also increased in the MS. Adiponectin, produced exclusively by adipocytes, is decreased in obesity. The association of these proinflammatory and prothrombotic markers with the MS is discussed in detail. The general goals of treatment of the MS are prevention of CHD events and diabetes if not already present. The approach to treatment of those with the MS should include lifestyle changes, including weight loss and exercise as well as appropriate pharmacological therapies. Certain medications, which may be used in persons with MS, have been shown to have beneficial effects on clinical outcome and/or anti-inflammatory effects.