Temporal Trends in the Management Practices of Clinically Important Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery

Michael Ke Wang, P. J. Devereaux, Maura Marcucci, Vladimir Lomivorotov, Daniel I. Sessler, Matthew T.V. Chan, Flavia K. Borges, Sandra N. Ofori, Pilar Paniagua, James D. Douketis, Alben Sigamani, Joel L. Parlow, Chew Y. Wang, Juan Carlos Villar, Sadeesh K. Srinathan, Wojciech Szczeklik, María José Martínez-Zapata, German Malaga, Soori Sivakumaran, William F. McIntyreMaría Virginia Rodríguez Funes, Patricia Cruz, Jesús Alvarez-Garcia, Isabelle Greiss, Ekaterine Popova, Martin E. Hemels, Axel Brandes, Clara K. Chow, Satish Prasad Barnawal, Jeff S. Healey, David Conen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Clinically important perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common cardiac complication after noncardiac surgery. Little is known about how patients with POAF are managed acutely and whether practices have changed over time. Methods: We conducted an observational substudy of patients who had POAF, were at elevated cardiovascular risk, and were enrolled in the PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-1, 2 and 3 trials between 2002 and 2021. POAF was defined as new, clinically important atrial fibrillation occurring within 30 days after surgery. We assessed the use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment in response to POAF, at hospital discharge and at 30 days after surgery. We assessed for temporal trends using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of the 27,896 patients included, 545 (1.9%) developed clinically important POAF. Patients received rhythm-control treatment in 48.6% of cases. The level of use of rhythm-control treatment increased over the course of the trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3; 40.9% vs 49.5% vs 59.1%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of rhythm-control treatment (odds ratio, 1.05 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.09). Anticoagulation treatment was prescribed in 21% of POAF cases. The level of anticoagulation treatement use was higher in POISE-3, compared to that in the 2 previous trials (POISE-1 vs POISE-2 vs POISE-3—16.4% vs 16.5% vs 33.6%). A later randomization date was associated independently with use of anticoagulation treatment (odds ratio, 1.06 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11). Conclusions: Despite the absence of randomized controlled trials, the level of use of rhythm-control and anticoagulation treatment for POAF is rising. High-quality trials are needed urgently to determine whether these interventions are safe and effective in this population.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1363-1371
Number of pages9
JournalCJC Open
Volume6
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2024
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Temporal Trends in the Management Practices of Clinically Important Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this