Provider Specialty and Atrial Fibrillation Treatment Strategies in United States Community Practice: Findings From the ORBIT‐AF Registry. Issue 4 (18th July 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fosbol, Emil L.; Holmes, DaJuanicia N.; Piccini, Jonathan P.; Thomas, Laine; Reiffel, James A.; Mills, Roger M.; Kowey, Peter; Mahaffey, Kenneth; Gersh, Bernard J.; Peterson, Eric D.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Heart Association. Volume 2:Issue 4(2013:Aug.)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2013-07-18
• Subjects: antithrombotic therapy -- atrial fibrillation -- ORBIT‐AF -- outpatient -- provider -- specialty; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cerebrovascular disease -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000110
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-9980

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) continues to increase; however, there are limited data describing the division of care among practitioners in the community and whether care differs depending on provider specialty. Methods and Results: Using the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT‐AF) Registry, we described patient characteristics and AF management strategies in ambulatory clinic practice settings, including electrophysiology (EP), general cardiology, and primary care. A total of 10 097 patients were included; of these, 1544 (15.3%) were cared for by an EP provider, 6584 (65.2%) by a cardiology provider, and 1969 (19.5%) by an internal medicine/primary care provider. Compared with those patients who were cared for by cardiologists or internal medicine/primary care providers, patients cared for by EP providers were younger (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, IQR, 64, 80 years, Q1, Q3] versus 75 years [IQR, 67, 82 years] for cardiology and versus 76 years [IQR, 68, 82 years] for primary care). Compared with cardiology and internal medicine/primary care providers, EP providers used rhythm control (versus rate control) management more often (44.2% versus 29.7% and 28.8%, respectively, P <0.0001; adjusted odds ratio [OR] EP versus cardiology, 1.66 [95% confidence interval, CI, 1.05 to 2.61]; adjusted OR for internal medicine/primary care versus cardiology, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.26]). Use of oral anticoagulant therapy was high across all providers, although it was higher for cardiology and EP providers (overall, 76.1%; P =0.02 for difference between groups). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate important differences between provider specialties, the demographics of the AF patient population treated, and treatment strategies—particularly for rhythm control and anticoagulation therapy.