4.7 Article

The Increasing Prevalence of Atrial Fibrillation among Hemodialysis Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 349-357

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2010050459

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDDK [1R21DK077336]
  2. American Heart Association
  3. Satellite Healthcare, Inc.
  4. Fibrogen
  5. Amgen
  6. Rockwell Medical

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A half million Americans have ESRD, which puts them at high risk for cardiovascular disease and poor outcomes. Little is known about the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation among patients with ESRD. We analyzed data from annual cohorts (1992 to 2006) of prevalent hemodialysis patients from the United States Renal Data System. In each cohort, we searched 1 year of medical claims for relevant diagnosis codes to determine the prevalence of atrial fibrillation. Among 2.5 million patient observations, 7.7% had atrial fibrillation, with the prevalence increasing 3-fold from 3.5% (1992) to 10.7% (2006). The number of affected patients increased from 3620 to 23,893 (6.6-fold) during this period. Older age, male gender, and several comorbid conditions were associated with increased risk for atrial fibrillation. Compared with otherwise similar Caucasians, the prevalence of atrial fibrillation rates was substantially lower for blacks, Asians, and Native Americans. One-year mortality was twice as high among hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation compared with those without (39% versus 19%), and this increased risk was constant during the 15 years of the study. In conclusion, the prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation among patients receiving hemodialysis in the United States is increasing, varies by race, and remains associated with substantially increased mortality. Identifying potentially modifiable risk factors for incident atrial fibrillation requires further investigation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available