American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 105, Issue 8 , Pages 1122-1129, 15 April 2010

Practice Patterns Among United States Cardiologists for Managing Adults With Atrial Fibrillation (from the AFFECTS Registry)

  • James A. Reiffel, MD

      Affiliations

    • Columbia University, New York, New York
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel: 212-305-5206; fax: 212-305-5155
  • ,
  • Peter R. Kowey, MD

      Affiliations

    • Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • ,
  • Robert Myerburg, MD

      Affiliations

    • University of Miami, Miami, Florida
  • ,
  • Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD

      Affiliations

    • Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
  • ,
  • Douglas L. Packer, MD

      Affiliations

    • Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • ,
  • Craig M. Pratt, MD

      Affiliations

    • Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • ,
  • Michael J. Reiter, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado
  • ,
  • Albert L. Waldo, MD

      Affiliations

    • University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
  • ,
  • AFFECTS Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators

Received 18 August 2009; received in revised form 19 November 2009; accepted 19 November 2009. published online 22 February 2010.

The Atrial Fibrillation: Focus on Effective Clinical Treatment Strategies (AFFECTS) Registry was designed to examine atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment by United States cardiologists in the context of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and European Society of Cardiology guidelines after recent landmark clinical trials. Most patients in AFFECTS had AF without clinically significant structural heart disease or only uncomplicated hypertension. Among the all-enrolled population (n = 1,461), initial treatment strategies assigned were rhythm control in 64% and rate control in 36%. Among patients with either paroxysmal (n = 1,165) or persistent (n = 273) AF, 67% and 55%, respectively, were assigned rhythm control. The trend to assign rhythm control as the initial treatment goal decreased with age. In the rhythm-control group, most patients (74%) also received a rate-control agent during the registry, while 25% of those assigned to rate control received antiarrhythmic drugs. Most first prescriptions of antiarrhythmic drugs were for first-line therapy compliant with 2001 (76%) and 2006 (86%) guidelines. Most second prescriptions were for first-line therapies as well. Rates of serious adverse events were low. In conclusion, data from this study provide insight into community treatment patterns in patients with AF, most without clinically significant structural heart disease or with only uncomplicated hypertension.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This study was sponsored by Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Liberty Corner, New Jersey (acquired by GlaxoSmithKline, London, United Kingdom), and by Columbia University, New York, New York.

 The full list of investigators appears in the Appendix to the online version of this report.

PII: S0002-9149(09)02842-2

doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.11.046

American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 105, Issue 8 , Pages 1122-1129, 15 April 2010