BACKGROUND: It is unknown if brief episodes of device-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) increase thromboembolic event (TE) risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRENDS was a prospective, observational study enrolling patients with > or = 1 stroke risk factor (heart failure, hypertension, age > or = 65 years, diabetes, or prior TE) receiving pacemakers or defibrillators that monitor atrial tachycardia (AT)/AF burden (defined as the longest total AT/AF duration on any given day during the prior 30-day period). This time-varying exposure was updated daily during follow-up and related to TE risk. Annualized TE rates were determined according to AT/AF burden subsets: zero, low (<5.5 hours [median duration of subsets with nonzero burden]), and high (> or = 5.5 hours). A multivariate Cox model provided hazard ratios including terms for stroke risk factors and time-varying AT/AF burden and antithrombotic therapy. Patients (n=2486) had at least 30 days of device data for analysis. During a mean follow-up of 1.4 years, annualized TE risk (including transient ischemic attacks) was 1.1% for zero, 1.1% for low, and 2.4% for high burden subsets of 30-day windows. Compared with zero burden, adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) in the low and high burden subsets were 0.98 (0.34 to 2.82, P=0.97) and 2.20 (0.96 to 5.05, P=0.06), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TE rate was low compared with patients with traditional AF with similar risk profiles. The data suggest that TE risk is a quantitative function of AT/AF burden. AT/AF burden > or = 5.5 hours on any of 30 prior days appeared to double TE risk. Additional studies are needed to more precisely investigate the relationship between stroke risk and AT/AF burden.
BACKGROUND: It is unknown if brief episodes of device-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) increase thromboembolic event (TE) risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRENDS was a prospective, observational study enrolling patients with > or = 1 stroke risk factor (heart failure, hypertension, age > or = 65 years, diabetes, or prior TE) receiving pacemakers or defibrillators that monitor atrial tachycardia (AT)/AF burden (defined as the longest total AT/AF duration on any given day during the prior 30-day period). This time-varying exposure was updated daily during follow-up and related to TE risk. Annualized TE rates were determined according to AT/AF burden subsets: zero, low (<5.5 hours [median duration of subsets with nonzero burden]), and high (> or = 5.5 hours). A multivariate Cox model provided hazard ratios including terms for stroke risk factors and time-varying AT/AF burden and antithrombotic therapy. Patients (n=2486) had at least 30 days of device data for analysis. During a mean follow-up of 1.4 years, annualized TE risk (including transient ischemic attacks) was 1.1% for zero, 1.1% for low, and 2.4% for high burden subsets of 30-day windows. Compared with zero burden, adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) in the low and high burden subsets were 0.98 (0.34 to 2.82, P=0.97) and 2.20 (0.96 to 5.05, P=0.06), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TE rate was low compared with patients with traditional AF with similar risk profiles. The data suggest that TE risk is a quantitative function of AT/AF burden. AT/AF burden > or = 5.5 hours on any of 30 prior days appeared to double TE risk. Additional studies are needed to more precisely investigate the relationship between stroke risk and AT/AF burden.
Authors: Sergio Dubner; Angelo Auricchio; Jonathan S Steinberg; Panos Vardas; Peter Stone; Josep Brugada; Ryszard Piotrowicz; David L Hayes; Paulus Kirchhof; Günter Breithardt; Wojciech Zareba; Claudio Schuger; Mehmet K Aktas; Michal Chudzik; Suneet Mittal; Niraj Varma Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John H Ip; Maria Viqar-Syed; Denise Grimes; Yan Xie; Kevin Jager; Jennifer Boak; Divyakant Gandhi Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Alan S Go; Kristi Reynolds; Jingrong Yang; Nigel Gupta; Judith Lenane; Sue Hee Sung; Teresa N Harrison; Taylor I Liu; Matthew D Solomon Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Daniel A Steinhaus; Peter J Zimetbaum; Rod S Passman; Peter Leong-Sit; Matthew R Reynolds Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2016-10-04