Key result
Physician stated management of atrial fibrillation diverged from ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines, particularly regarding first-line drug selection in patients with structural heart disease.
Why the study?
What are physicians' theoretical approaches to rhythm and rate control in recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients?
Observational (n=5,604)
Yes
What are physicians' theoretical approaches to rhythm and rate control in recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients?
Physician-stated management of atrial fibrillation frequently diverges from ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines, particularly in the use of amiodarone as a first-line rhythm control agent in patients with structural heart disease.
Stated AF management diverges from guidelines; leaves open real-world translation and supports targeted implementation research.
BACKGROUND: The Registry on Cardiac Rhythm Disorders Assessing the Control of Atrial Fibrillation (RecordAF) study is the first worldwide, prospective, survey of real-life management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in recently diagnosed patients (n = 5604) with a 1-year follow-up. HYPOTHESIS: Surveys of AF management have identified a divergence between guidelines and clinical practice, and an overinterpretation of guidelines in low-risk patients. METHODS: : Physicians' theoretical approaches to rhythm and rate control were investigated using a pre-study questionnaire. RESULTS: One cardiologist, from each of the 583 sites in 6 regions, completed a questionnaire on their practice and management of AF patients. In AF patients with structural heart disease (SHD), amiodarone was the most frequent choice of first-line rhythm control agents in all regions. Amiodarone or sotalol tended to be the preferred second-line rhythm control agents, 1 exception being Central/South America. beta-Blockers were the first-line rate control agents for patients with AF and SHD in all regions, and calcium channel blockers and cardiac glycosides were the most common second-line rate control treatments in all regions, except Asia. In lone AF patients, propafenone (30.6%), flecainide (24.1%), and amiodarone (21.7%) were the most common global choices of first-line rhythm control, and amiodarone or sotalol were the preferred second-line rhythm control agents, 1 exception being Central/South America. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight points of divergence from the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/ American Heart Association (AHA)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of AF in terms of first-line drug selection in patients with associated SHD or coronary artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kowey et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Atrial Fibrillation (n=5,604). Physician stated management of atrial fibrillation was evaluated on Physicians' theoretical approaches to rhythm and rate control. Physician stated management of atrial fibrillation diverged from ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines, particularly regarding first-line drug selection in patients with structural heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: