BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation affects more than two million Americans and results in a fivefold increased rate of embolic strokes. The efficacy of adjusted dose warfarin is well documented, yet many patients are not receiving treatment consistent with guidelines. The use of a patient-specific computerized decision support tool may aid in closing the knowledge gap regarding the best treatment for a patient. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort analysis of 6,123 Ohio Medicaid patients used a patient-specific computerized decision support tool that automated the complex risk-benefit analysis for anticoagulation. Adverse outcomes included acute stroke, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to compare the group of patients who received warfarin treatment with those who did not receive warfarin treatment, stratified by the decision support tool's recommendation. RESULTS: Our decision support tool recommended warfarin for 3,008 patients (49%); however, only 9.9% received warfarin. In patients for whom anticoagulation was recommended by the decision support tool, there was a trend towards a decreased hazard for stroke with actual warfarin treatment (hazard ratio 0.90) without significant increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.87). In contrast, in patients for whom the tool recommended no anticoagulation, receipt of warfarin was associated with statistically significant increased hazard of gastrointestinal bleeding (1.54, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that our atrial fibrillation decision support tool is a useful predictor of those at risk of major bleeding for whom anticoagulation may not necessarily be beneficial. It may aid in weighing the benefits versus risks of anticoagulation treatment.
BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation affects more than two million Americans and results in a fivefold increased rate of embolic strokes. The efficacy of adjusted dose warfarin is well documented, yet many patients are not receiving treatment consistent with guidelines. The use of a patient-specific computerized decision support tool may aid in closing the knowledge gap regarding the best treatment for a patient. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort analysis of 6,123 Ohio Medicaid patients used a patient-specific computerized decision support tool that automated the complex risk-benefit analysis for anticoagulation. Adverse outcomes included acute stroke, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to compare the group of patients who received warfarin treatment with those who did not receive warfarin treatment, stratified by the decision support tool's recommendation. RESULTS: Our decision support tool recommended warfarin for 3,008 patients (49%); however, only 9.9% received warfarin. In patients for whom anticoagulation was recommended by the decision support tool, there was a trend towards a decreased hazard for stroke with actual warfarin treatment (hazard ratio 0.90) without significant increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.87). In contrast, in patients for whom the tool recommended no anticoagulation, receipt of warfarin was associated with statistically significant increased hazard of gastrointestinal bleeding (1.54, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that our atrial fibrillation decision support tool is a useful predictor of those at risk of major bleeding for whom anticoagulation may not necessarily be beneficial. It may aid in weighing the benefits versus risks of anticoagulation treatment.
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: Theresa I Shireman; Pamela C Heaton; Wendy E Gay; Robert J Cluxton; Charles J Moomaw Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Anand R Shewale; Jill T Johnson; Chenghui Li; David Nelsen; Bradley C Martin Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Kathleen Lang; Duygu Bozkaya; Aarti A Patel; Brian Macomson; Winnie Nelson; Gary Owens; Samir Mody; Jeff Schein; Joseph Menzin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Derk L Arts; Stefan Visscher; Wim Opstelten; Joke C Korevaar; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Henk C P M van Weert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luciane Cruz Lopes; Frederick A Spencer; Ignacio Neumann; Matthew Ventresca; Shanil Ebrahim; Qi Zhou; Neera Bhatnagar; Sam Schulman; John Eikelboom; Gordon Guyatt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240