AIMS: The aim of the Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation Ensemble (SAFE) II study was to identify the reasons underlying the under-utilization of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: We investigated from all available sources the reasons why patients hospitalized for a stroke, who had a previously known NVAF, were not receiving OAC beforehand. We interviewed general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists with a structured questionnaire, to identify the reasons for their therapeutic choice. RESULTS: Of 370 patients, 257 were theoretically eligible for OAC according to guidelines and the presence of contra-indications, but only 82 (22.2%) of them had actually received OAC before. We found that factors independently associated with the prescription of OAC were being followed-up by a cardiologist and having a younger GP. The leading reason evoked by GPs or cardiologists to explain why patients were not treated with OAC was the presence of a 'potential contra-indication', which was often inappropriate, followed by 'there was no indication', 'low compliance' and 'fear of bleeding'. CONCLUSIONS: An important reason for not prescribing OAC was the lack of knowledge about trials and guidelines. Medical education about OAC in NVAF should therefore be improved.
AIMS: The aim of the Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation Ensemble (SAFE) II study was to identify the reasons underlying the under-utilization of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: We investigated from all available sources the reasons why patients hospitalized for a stroke, who had a previously known NVAF, were not receiving OAC beforehand. We interviewed general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists with a structured questionnaire, to identify the reasons for their therapeutic choice. RESULTS: Of 370 patients, 257 were theoretically eligible for OAC according to guidelines and the presence of contra-indications, but only 82 (22.2%) of them had actually received OAC before. We found that factors independently associated with the prescription of OAC were being followed-up by a cardiologist and having a younger GP. The leading reason evoked by GPs or cardiologists to explain why patients were not treated with OAC was the presence of a 'potential contra-indication', which was often inappropriate, followed by 'there was no indication', 'low compliance' and 'fear of bleeding'. CONCLUSIONS: An important reason for not prescribing OAC was the lack of knowledge about trials and guidelines. Medical education about OAC in NVAF should therefore be improved.
Authors: N Cohen; D Almoznino-Sarafian; I Alon; O Gorelik; M Koopfer; S Chachashvily; M Shteinshnaider; V Litvinjuk; D Modai Journal: Stroke Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Didier Leys; Hubert Kwiecinski; Julien Bogousslavsky; Philip Bath; Michael Brainin; Hans-Christoph Diener; Markku Kaste; Juhani Sivenius; Michael G Hennerici; Werner Hacke Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Tammy J Bungard; William A Ghali; Finlay A McAlister; Alastair M Buchan; Andrew J Cave; Peter G Hamilton; L Brent Mitchell; Ashfaq Shuaib; Koon K Teo; Ross T Tsuyuki Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: M Gosch; R E Roller; B Böhmdorfer; U Benvenuti-Falger; B Iglseder; M Lechleitner; U Sommeregger; P Dovjak Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: Jane S Saczynski; Saket R Sanghai; Catarina I Kiefe; Darleen Lessard; Francesca Marino; Molly E Waring; David Parish; Robert Helm; Felix Sogade; Robert Goldberg; Jerry Gurwitz; Weijia Wang; Tanya Mailhot; Benita Bamgbade; Bruce Barton; David D McManus Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Etienne Aliot; Günter Breithardt; Josep Brugada; John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Panos E Vardas; Markus Wagner Journal: Europace Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.214