Abstract 4359302: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes in Triggered Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from the VITAL-AF Trial

Introduction: Triggered atrial fibrillation (AF), defined as new-onset AF in the setting of a reversible physiological stressor, is common. However, risk factors, outcomes, and management remain poorly understood. Methods: We analyzed data from VITAL-AF, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized AF screening trial (2018-2019) of adults aged 65 and greater across 16 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital, with 2 years of follow-up and adjudicated incident AF type (triggered vs. primary AF) and clinical outcomes. We compared associations between clinical AF risk factors and incident AF type (i.e, triggered vs non-triggered/primary) using Fine-Gray models. We quantified rates of OAC initiation following AF diagnosis. We then fit Cox proportional hazards models to measure the association between AF type and a composite endpoint of major bleeding, stroke, and all-cause mortality (pre-specified adjudicated VITAL-AF outcomes), with adjustment for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (stroke) and ATRIA (bleeding) scores and time-varying OAC exposure. Results: The study included 30,215 patients (59% female, 83% White, mean age 74). Of 998 incident AF events, 290 (29%) were triggered AF. Clinical risk factors including age, hypertension, and heart failure showed similar associations with both primary and triggered AF (Fig. 1). OAC initiation within 90 days of diagnosis was lower for triggered AF than primary AF, notably in medium (63% vs. 79%) and high (54% vs. 74%) CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc risk groups (p<0.05 for both) (Fig. 2). The incidence of the composite endpoint (per 100 person years) was 1.32 (95% CI 1.22-1.43), 8.06 (6.03-10.54), and 7.45 (4.42-11.78), for no AF, primary AF, and triggered AF, respectively (Fig. 3). In adjusted models, both primary (HR 2.23; 95% CI, 1.45-3.43) and triggered AF (HR 2.39; 95% CI, 1.36-4.22) were associated with similarly higher risk of the composite endpoint compared to no AF. Conclusions: Among over 30,000 primary care patients with manually adjudicated events, nearly one-third of incident AF cases were triggered. Despite similar risk factor profiles and similarly higher risk of AF-related adverse outcomes, OAC use appears lower when AF is triggered. Future work is needed to raise awareness of the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with triggered atrial fibrillation and to develop standardized approaches to risk stratification and anticoagulation in this population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4359302
Primary Topic
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4359302: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes in Triggered Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from the VITAL-AF Trial

Steven Lubitz, Daniel E. Singer, Leila H. Borowsky, Shaan Khurshid et al.
Circulation
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
article

Abstract 4359302: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes in Triggered Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from the VITAL-AF Trial

Steven Lubitz, Daniel E. Singer, Leila H. Borowsky, Shaan Khurshid, Yuchiao Chang, Steven J. Atlas, Patrick T. Ellinor, Julian S. Haimovich, Shinwan Kany
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Triggered atrial fibrillation (AF), defined as new-onset AF in the setting of a reversible physiological stressor, is common. However, risk factors, outcomes, and management remain poorly understood. Methods: We analyzed data from VITAL-AF, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized AF screening trial (2018-2019) of adults aged 65 and greater across 16 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital, with 2 years of follow-up and adjudicated incident AF type (triggered vs. primary AF) and clinical outcomes. We compared associations between clinical AF risk factors and incident AF type (i.e, triggered vs non-triggered/primary) using Fine-Gray models. We quantified rates of OAC initiation following AF diagnosis. We then fit Cox proportional hazards models to measure the association between AF type and a composite endpoint of major bleeding, stroke, and all-cause mortality (pre-specified adjudicated VITAL-AF outcomes), with adjustment for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (stroke) and ATRIA (bleeding) scores and time-varying OAC exposure. Results: The study included 30,215 patients (59% female, 83% White, mean age 74). Of 998 incident AF events, 290 (29%) were triggered AF. Clinical risk factors including age, hypertension, and heart failure showed similar associations with both primary and triggered AF (Fig. 1). OAC initiation within 90 days of diagnosis was lower for triggered AF than primary AF, notably in medium (63% vs. 79%) and high (54% vs. 74%) CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc risk groups (p<0.05 for both) (Fig. 2). The incidence of the composite endpoint (per 100 person years) was 1.32 (95% CI 1.22-1.43), 8.06 (6.03-10.54), and 7.45 (4.42-11.78), for no AF, primary AF, and triggered AF, respectively (Fig. 3). In adjusted models, both primary (HR 2.23; 95% CI, 1.45-3.43) and triggered AF (HR 2.39; 95% CI, 1.36-4.22) were associated with similarly higher risk of the composite endpoint compared to no AF. Conclusions: Among over 30,000 primary care patients with manually adjudicated events, nearly one-third of incident AF cases were triggered. Despite similar risk factor profiles and similarly higher risk of AF-related adverse outcomes, OAC use appears lower when AF is triggered. Future work is needed to raise awareness of the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with triggered atrial fibrillation and to develop standardized approaches to risk stratification and anticoagulation in this population.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
Broad Institute (US), MGH Institute of Health Professions (US), Newton Wellesley Hospital (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Novartis (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.