Key result
Treatment pathways for incident AF at a large US academic center consisted of rate-control in 39%, rhythm-control in 29%, and neither in 32% of 24,990 patients.
Why the study?
Early rhythm-control improves cardiovascular outcomes and ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs, but the extent of adoption of contemporary trials and guidelines for new onset AF is unknown.
What are the contemporary treatment pathways and extent of adoption of early rhythm-control for new onset atrial fibrillation at a large US academic tertiary center?
Observational (n=24,990)
No
What are the contemporary treatment pathways and extent of adoption of early rhythm-control for new onset atrial fibrillation at a large US academic tertiary center?
Despite evidence supporting early rhythm control, the majority of patients with incident AF at a large US academic center receive either no intervention or rate-control only.
BACKGROUND: Early rhythm-control after atrial fibrillation (AF) incidence is associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, AF ablation provides more effective rhythm-control than antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). The extent of adoption of contemporary trials and guidelines for the management of new onset AF is unknown. OBJECTIVE: In this observational retrospective study, we sought to evaluate treatment pathways for new onset AF at a large tertiary academic medical center within the last 6 years. METHODS: We performed a systematic search within our institutional TriNetX database to identify adult patients who (1) had new onset AF between January 2018 and January 2023, (2) did not have surgery or thyrotoxicosis within 1 month of incident AF diagnosis, and (3) had at least one visit at our center > 6 months after initial AF diagnosis. Patients with prior AF diagnosis were excluded. We identified the initial three lines of treatment administered following AF diagnosis, including rate- or rhythm-control strategies with AADs or ablation therapy. RESULTS: The cohort included 24 990 patients (mean age at diagnosis 69.8 ± 13.1 years, 58% male). During follow-up, 7130 (29%) received rhythm-control, 9760 (39%) received rate-control, and 8100 (32%) received neither. Rhythm-control consisted of AADs in 4610 (18%) and AF ablation in 2530 (10%). As first line therapy, 12 055 (48%) patients received rate-control, 3919 (16%) received AADs and 916 (4%) underwent AF ablation. CONCLUSION: Most contemporary patients with incident AF at a large US academic tertiary center either received no rate or rhythm intervention or only rate-control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zghaib et al. (2025) conducted an observational in New onset atrial fibrillation (n=24,990). Treatment pathways (rate-control, rhythm-control, or neither) was evaluated on Initial three lines of treatment administered following AF diagnosis. Treatment pathways for incident AF at a large US academic center consisted of rate-control in 39%, rhythm-control in 29%, and neither in 32% of 24,990 patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: