TY - JOUR
T1 - New-onset versus prior history of atrial fibrillation
T2 - Outcomes from the AFFIRM trial
AU - Damluji, Abdulla A.
AU - Al-Damluji, Mohammed S.
AU - Marzouka, George R.
AU - Coffey, James O.
AU - Viles-Gonzalez, Juan F.
AU - Cohen, Mauricio G.
AU - Moscucci, Mauro
AU - Myerburg, Robert J.
AU - Mitrani, Raul D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/7/1
Y1 - 2015/7/1
N2 - Background There are limited data on prognosis and outcomes of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with those with a prior history of AF. Methods and results We conducted a comparison of these 2 groups in the AFFIRM trial. New-onset AF was the qualifying arrhythmia in 1,391 patients (34%). Compared with patients with prior history of AF, patients with new-onset AF were more likely to have a history of heart failure. There was no mortality difference between rate control (RaC) and rhythm control (RhC) among patients with new-onset AF (17% vs 20%, P =.152). In the univariate model, new-onset AF was associated with increased risk of mortality compared with history of prior AF (RaC unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [P =.010], RhC unadjusted HR 1.39 [P =.003]). However, after multivariate adjustments, new-onset AF did not carry an increased risk of mortality (RaC adjusted HR 1.14 [P =.370], RhC adjusted HR 1.16 [P =.248]). Subjects with new-onset AF randomized to the RhC arm were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm at follow-up (adjusted HR 0.79, P =.012) compared with patients with prior history of AF. Conclusions In a multivariable analysis adjusting for confounders, new-onset AF was not associated with increased mortality compared with prior history of AF regardless of the treatment strategy. Patients with new-onset AF treated with the rhythm control strategy were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm on follow-up.
AB - Background There are limited data on prognosis and outcomes of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with those with a prior history of AF. Methods and results We conducted a comparison of these 2 groups in the AFFIRM trial. New-onset AF was the qualifying arrhythmia in 1,391 patients (34%). Compared with patients with prior history of AF, patients with new-onset AF were more likely to have a history of heart failure. There was no mortality difference between rate control (RaC) and rhythm control (RhC) among patients with new-onset AF (17% vs 20%, P =.152). In the univariate model, new-onset AF was associated with increased risk of mortality compared with history of prior AF (RaC unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [P =.010], RhC unadjusted HR 1.39 [P =.003]). However, after multivariate adjustments, new-onset AF did not carry an increased risk of mortality (RaC adjusted HR 1.14 [P =.370], RhC adjusted HR 1.16 [P =.248]). Subjects with new-onset AF randomized to the RhC arm were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm at follow-up (adjusted HR 0.79, P =.012) compared with patients with prior history of AF. Conclusions In a multivariable analysis adjusting for confounders, new-onset AF was not associated with increased mortality compared with prior history of AF regardless of the treatment strategy. Patients with new-onset AF treated with the rhythm control strategy were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm on follow-up.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84931575852&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84931575852&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.04.020
DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.04.020
M3 - Article
C2 - 26093877
AN - SCOPUS:84931575852
SN - 0002-8703
VL - 170
SP - 156-163.e1
JO - American Heart Journal
JF - American Heart Journal
IS - 1
ER -