Sofia E Gomez1, Muhammad Fazal1, Julio C Nunes2,3,4, Shayena Shah1, Alexander C Perino1, Sanjiv M Narayan1, Kamala P Tamirisa5, Janet K Han4,6, Fatima Rodriguez1, Tina Baykaner7. 1. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, H2146, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 2. Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute, Dallas, TX, USA. 6. David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, H2146, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. tina4@stanford.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects around 6 million Americans. AF management involves pharmacologic therapy and/or interventional procedures to control rate and rhythm, as well as anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Different populations may respond differently to distinct management strategies. This review will describe disparities in rate and rhythm control and their impact on outcomes among women and historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups. METHODS: This is a narrative review exploring the topic of sex and racial and/or ethnic disparities in rate and rhythm management of AF. We describe basic terminology, summarize AF epidemiology, discuss diversity in clinical research, and review landmark clinical trials. RESULTS: Despite having higher rates of traditional AF risk factors, Black and Hispanic adults have lower risk of AF than non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients, although those with AF experience more severe symptoms and report lower quality-of-life scores than NHW patients with AF. NHW patients receive antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversions, and invasive therapies more frequently than Black and Hispanic patients. Women have lower rates of AF than men, but experience more severe symptoms, heart failure, stroke, and death after AF diagnosis. Women and people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds are inadequately represented in AF trials; prevalence findings may be a result of underdetection. CONCLUSION: Race, ethnicity, and gender are social determinants of health that may impact the prevalence, evolution, and management of AF. This impact reflects differences in biology as well as disparities in treatment and representation in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects around 6 million Americans. AF management involves pharmacologic therapy and/or interventional procedures to control rate and rhythm, as well as anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Different populations may respond differently to distinct management strategies. This review will describe disparities in rate and rhythm control and their impact on outcomes among women and historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups. METHODS: This is a narrative review exploring the topic of sex and racial and/or ethnic disparities in rate and rhythm management of AF. We describe basic terminology, summarize AF epidemiology, discuss diversity in clinical research, and review landmark clinical trials. RESULTS: Despite having higher rates of traditional AF risk factors, Black and Hispanic adults have lower risk of AF than non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients, although those with AF experience more severe symptoms and report lower quality-of-life scores than NHW patients with AF. NHW patients receive antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversions, and invasive therapies more frequently than Black and Hispanic patients. Women have lower rates of AF than men, but experience more severe symptoms, heart failure, stroke, and death after AF diagnosis. Women and people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds are inadequately represented in AF trials; prevalence findings may be a result of underdetection. CONCLUSION: Race, ethnicity, and gender are social determinants of health that may impact the prevalence, evolution, and management of AF. This impact reflects differences in biology as well as disparities in treatment and representation in clinical trials.
Authors: Eric Shulman; Tina Shah; Alon Y Mazori; Jay J Chudow; Faraj Kargoli; Dmitriy Nevelev; Jorge Romero; Luigi Di Biase; John Fisher; Jay Gross; Kevin J Ferrick; Andrew Krumerman Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Albert Yuh-Jer Shen; Richard Contreras; Serap Sobnosky; Ahmed I Shah; Anne M Ichiuji; Michael B Jorgensen; Somjot S Brar; Wansu Chen Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Eric Shulman; Faraj Kargoli; Philip Aagaard; Ethan Hoch; Luigi Di Biase; John Fisher; Jay Gross; Soo Kim; Kevin J Ferrick; Andrew Krumerman Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Marco V Perez; Paul J Wang; Joseph C Larson; Elsayed Z Soliman; Marian Limacher; Beatriz Rodriguez; Liviu Klein; Joann E Manson; Lisa W Martin; Ronald Prineas; Stephanie Connelly; Mark Hlatky; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: Heart Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Alvaro Alonso; Sunil K Agarwal; Elsayed Z Soliman; Marietta Ambrose; Alanna M Chamberlain; Ronald J Prineas; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Renate B Schnabel; Xiaoyan Yin; Philimon Gona; Martin G Larson; Alexa S Beiser; David D McManus; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven A Lubitz; Jared W Magnani; Patrick T Ellinor; Sudha Seshadri; Philip A Wolf; Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Carlo Mannina; Zhezhen Jin; Kenji Matsumoto; Kazato Ito; Angelo Biviano; Mitchell S V Elkind; Tatjana Rundek; Shunichi Homma; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.039