Benjamin A Steinberg1, Zhen Li2, Peter Shrader3, Derek S Chew4, T Jared Bunch5, Daniel B Mark6, Yelena Nabutovsky7, Rashmee U Shah5, Melissa A Greiner2, Jonathan P Piccini8. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT. Electronic address: benjamin.steinberg@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Population Health, Duke University, Durham, NC. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC. 4. Department of Population Health, Duke University, Durham, NC; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT. 6. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC; Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 7. Abbott, Santa Clara, CA. 8. Department of Population Health, Duke University, Durham, NC; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC; Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burden of atrial fibrillation (AF), as a continuous measure, is an emerging alternative classification often assumed to increase linearly with progression of disease. Yet there are no descriptions of AF burden distributions across populations. METHODS: We examined patterns of AF burden (% time in AF) across 3 different cohorts: outpatients with AF undergoing Holter monitoring in a national registry (ORBIT-AF II), routine outpatients undergoing Holter monitoring in a tertiary healthcare system (UHealth), and patients >= 65 years with cardiac implantable electronic devices (Merlin.netTM linked to Medicare). RESULTS: We included 2,058 ORBIT-AF II patients, 4,537 UHealth patients, and 39,710 from Merlin.net. Mean age ranged from 56 to 77 years, sex ranged from 40% to 61% male, and mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores ranged from 2.2 to 4.9. Across all cohorts, AF burden demonstrated skewed frequency towards the extremes, with the vast majority of patients having either very low or very high AF burden. This bimodal distribution was consistent across cohorts, across clinically-documented AF types (paroxysmal v persistent), patients with or without a known AF diagnosis, and among patients with different types of cardiac implantable electronic devices. CONCLUSIONS: Across 3 broad, diverse cohorts with continuous monitoring, distribution of AF burden was consistently skewed towards the extremes without an even, linear distribution or progression. As AF burden is increasingly recognized as a descriptor and potential risk-stratifier, these findings have important implications for future research and patient care.
BACKGROUND: Burden of atrial fibrillation (AF), as a continuous measure, is an emerging alternative classification often assumed to increase linearly with progression of disease. Yet there are no descriptions of AF burden distributions across populations. METHODS: We examined patterns of AF burden (% time in AF) across 3 different cohorts: outpatients with AF undergoing Holter monitoring in a national registry (ORBIT-AF II), routine outpatients undergoing Holter monitoring in a tertiary healthcare system (UHealth), and patients >= 65 years with cardiac implantable electronic devices (Merlin.netTM linked to Medicare). RESULTS: We included 2,058 ORBIT-AF II patients, 4,537 UHealth patients, and 39,710 from Merlin.net. Mean age ranged from 56 to 77 years, sex ranged from 40% to 61% male, and mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores ranged from 2.2 to 4.9. Across all cohorts, AF burden demonstrated skewed frequency towards the extremes, with the vast majority of patients having either very low or very high AF burden. This bimodal distribution was consistent across cohorts, across clinically-documented AF types (paroxysmal v persistent), patients with or without a known AF diagnosis, and among patients with different types of cardiac implantable electronic devices. CONCLUSIONS: Across 3 broad, diverse cohorts with continuous monitoring, distribution of AF burden was consistently skewed towards the extremes without an even, linear distribution or progression. As AF burden is increasingly recognized as a descriptor and potential risk-stratifier, these findings have important implications for future research and patient care.
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Rosalia G Blanco; Donna Ollis; Sunghee Kim; DaJuanicia N Holmes; Peter R Kowey; Gregg C Fonarow; Jack Ansell; Bernard Gersh; Alan S Go; Elaine Hylek; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Laine Thomas; Paul Chang; Eric D Peterson; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Jeffrey Turner; Ann Lyons; Joshua Biber; Mihail G Chelu; James C Fang; Roger A Freedman; Frederick T Han; Benjamin Hardisty; Nassir F Marrouche; Ravi Ranjan; Rashmee U Shah; John A Spertus; Josef Stehlik; Brian Zenger; Jonathan P Piccini; Rachel Hess Journal: Europace Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michelle Samuel; Paul Khairy; Jean Champagne; Marc W Deyell; Laurent Macle; Peter Leong-Sit; Paul Novak; Mariano Badra-Verdu; John Sapp; Jean-Claude Tardif; Jason G Andrade Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 30.154
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; A John Camm; Andreas Goette; Axel Brandes; Lars Eckardt; Arif Elvan; Thomas Fetsch; Isabelle C van Gelder; Doreen Haase; Laurent M Haegeli; Frank Hamann; Hein Heidbüchel; Gerhard Hindricks; Josef Kautzner; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Lluis Mont; G Andre Ng; Jerzy Rekosz; Norbert Schoen; Ulrich Schotten; Anna Suling; Jens Taggeselle; Sakis Themistoclakis; Eik Vettorazzi; Panos Vardas; Karl Wegscheider; Stephan Willems; Harry J G M Crijns; Günter Breithardt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-08-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Zhen Li; Emily C O'Brien; Jessica Pritchard; Derek S Chew; T Jared Bunch; Daniel B Mark; Yelena Nabutovsky; Melissa A Greiner; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Fredrik Holmqvist; Sunghee Kim; Benjamin A Steinberg; James A Reiffel; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Bernard J Gersh; Gregg C Fonarow; Gerald V Naccarelli; Paul Chang; James V Freeman; Peter R Kowey; Laine Thomas; Eric D Peterson; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Heart Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Ruben R De With; Ömer Erküner; Michiel Rienstra; Bao-Oanh Nguyen; Frank W J Körver; Dominik Linz; Hugo Cate Ten; Henri Spronk; Abraham A Kroon; Alexander H Maass; Yuri Blaauw; Robert G Tieleman; Martin E W Hemels; Joris R de Groot; Arif Elvan; Mirko de Melis; Coert O S Scheerder; Meelad I H Al-Jazairi; Ulrich Schotten; Justin G L M Luermans; Harry J G M Crijns; Isabelle C Van Gelder Journal: Europace Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214