Rhythm versus rate control strategies regarding anticoagulant use in elderly non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients: Subanalysis of the ANAFIE (All Nippon AF In the Elderly) Registry

Background: Data on real-world antiarrhythmic and anticoagulant therapy use in elderly atrial fibrillation (AF) patients are lacking; thus, we performed a subanalysis of data from the ANAFIE registry to clarify the current management of Japanese patients aged ≥75 years with non-valvular AF. Methods: The ANAFIE registry was a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients were stratified into three groups: rhythm control group, rate control group, and no antiarrhythmic group. The CHADS₂, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores were used to estimate embolic and bleeding risk. Results: Among 32,490 patients, the overall frequencies of AF by type were 42.0 % (paroxysmal), 30.1 % (persistent and long-standing persistent), and 27.9 % (permanent). Significant differences (p < 0.0001, each) in age were observed among the three groups; more patients aged 75–79 years received rhythm control (44.2 %) vs rate control (38.8 %). Patients aged ≥85 years received either rate control therapy or no antiarrhythmic agent (∼20 %, each). In the overall population, 36.9 % and 19.6 % of patients were receiving rate and rhythm control therapy, respectively; 43.4 % were not receiving antiarrhythmic therapy. The rate control group consisted mainly of patients with persistent (16.3 %) and permanent AF (38.6 %), and the rhythm control group, of patients with paroxysmal AF (79.0 %). Significantly lower embolic and bleeding risk scores and significantly higher embolic risk scores were observed in patients in the rhythm and rate control groups, respectively. In total, 92.1 % of elderly Japanese patients with AF were receiving anticoagulant therapy. The frequency of direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use was similar (∼66 %) among the three groups. Significantly more patients in the rate control group (28.6 %) were being treated with warfarin than in the rhythm control group (21.6 %) (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Use versus non-use and antiarrhythmic therapy varied significantly by age, stroke risk scores, type of AF, and DOAC use between subgroups.