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.

Heart rate, beta-blocker use, and outcomes of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Aims: High resting heart rate (HR ≥70 b.p.m.) is associated with worse clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Heart rate, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with beta-blocker (BB), and cardiovascular outcomes were evaluated in a large integrated health network. Methods and results: Using electronic health records we examined patients with chronic HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤35%) in sinus rhythm with at least 1 year of follow-up and available serial HR and medication data between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2014. Among 6071 patients followed for median of 1330 days across 73 586 total visits, median HR remained stable over time with 61.2% of the follow-up period with HR ≥70 b.p.m. At baseline, 27.9% of patients were on ≥ 50% GDMT target BB dose, 16.2% subjects at baseline, and 19.4% at the end of follow-up had HR ≥70 b.p.m. despite receiving ≥50% of target BB dose. In adjusted analyses, baseline HR was associated with all-cause mortality/heart failure (HF) hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.28 per 15 b.p.m. Heart rate increase; P < 0.001). In comparison, hazard ratio for BB dose was 0.97 (per 77.2 mg increase; P = 0.36). When evaluating patients based on HR and BB dose there was a significant difference in the cumulative hazard for all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (P < 0.001). For HF hospitalization, hazard appeared to be more closely associated with HR rather than BB dose (P = 0.01). Conclusion: In a real-world analysis, high resting HR was common in HFrEF patients and associated with adverse outcomes. Opportunities exist to improve GDMT and achieve HR control.

Circulating Proneurotensin Concentrations and Cardiovascular Disease Events in the Community: The Framingham Heart Study.

OBJECTIVE: Neurotensin is a peptide whose receptor (sortilin receptor 1) is linked to cardiovascular disease (CVD) development. We hypothesized concentrations of proneurotensin (stable profragment of neurotensin) would predict incident cardiovascular events in community-based subjects. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Blood samples from 3439 participants in the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) Offspring cohort (mean age 59.2 years, 47.1% male) were tested for proneurotensin. Primary outcome of interest was incident hard CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death); interaction between proneurotensin concentration with sex, low-density lipoprotein concentrations, and sortilin receptor 1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms was sought. At baseline, those in the highest log-proneurotensin quartile were younger and heavier (P<0.001); across proneurotensin quartiles, more prevalent hard CVD (from 3% to 7%; P<0.001) and diabetes mellitus (from 6% to 14%; P<0.001) were present. In age- and sex-adjusted models, log-proneurotensin concentrations predicted incident hard CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24 per SD change in log-proneurotensin; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.11-1.39; P<0.001), a finding that remained on adjustment for standard CVD risk factors (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27; P=0.03). Elevated log-proneurotensin concentrations were associated with shorter time to first event (P=0.02). We found no effect modification by sex, low-density lipoprotein concentration, or sortilin receptor 1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Concentrations of proneurotensin were modestly associated with left ventricular mass and coronary artery calcium in these subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Higher concentrations of proneurotensin are associated with a greater risk of incident cardiovascular events in the community. This association did not vary according to sex, baseline low-density lipoprotein, or sortilin receptor 1 genotype.