Benjamin A Steinberg1, Sunghee Kim2, Laine Thomas2, Gregg C Fonarow2, Elaine Hylek2, Jack Ansell2, Alan S Go2, Paul Chang2, Peter Kowey2, Bernard J Gersh2, Kenneth W Mahaffey2, Daniel E Singer2, Jonathan P Piccini2, Eric D Peterson2. 1. From the Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (B.A.S., J.P.P., E.D.P.); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (B.A.S., S.K., L.T., J.P.P., E.D.P.); UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA (G.C.F.); Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (E.H.); New York University School of Medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY (J.A.); Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA (A.S.G.); Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Raritan, NJ (P.C.); Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA (P.K.); Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (B.J.G.); Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA (K.W.M.); and Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (D.E.S.). benjamin.steinberg@duke.edu. 2. From the Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (B.A.S., J.P.P., E.D.P.); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (B.A.S., S.K., L.T., J.P.P., E.D.P.); UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA (G.C.F.); Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (E.H.); New York University School of Medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY (J.A.); Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA (A.S.G.); Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Raritan, NJ (P.C.); Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA (P.K.); Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (B.J.G.); Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA (K.W.M.); and Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA (D.E.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) must weigh the benefits of anticoagulation in preventing stroke versus the risk of bleeding. Although empirical models have been developed to predict such risks, the degree to which these coincide with clinicians' estimates is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 10 094 AF patients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) registry between June 2010 and August 2011. Empirical stroke and bleeding risks were assessed by using the congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2) and Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores, respectively. Separately, physicians were asked to categorize their patients' stroke and bleeding risks: low risk (<3%); intermediate risk (3%-6%); and high risk (>6%). Overall, 72% (n=7251) in ORBIT-AF had high-risk CHADS2 scores (≥2). However, only 16% were assessed as high stroke risk by physicians. Although 17% (n=1749) had high ATRIA bleeding risk (score ≥5), only 7% (n=719) were considered so by physicians. The associations between empirical and physician-estimated stroke and bleeding risks were low (weighted Kappa 0.1 and 0.11, respectively). Physicians weighed hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus less significantly than empirical models in estimating stroke risk; physicians weighted anemia and dialysis less significantly than empirical models when estimating bleeding risks. Anticoagulation use was highest among patients with high stroke risk, assessed by either empirical model or physician estimates. In contrast, physician and empirical estimates of bleeding had limited impact on treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS: There is little agreement between provider-assessed risk and empirical scores in AF. These differences may explain, in part, the current divergence of anticoagulation treatment decisions from guideline recommendations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.
BACKGROUND: Physicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) must weigh the benefits of anticoagulation in preventing stroke versus the risk of bleeding. Although empirical models have been developed to predict such risks, the degree to which these coincide with clinicians' estimates is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 10 094 AFpatients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) registry between June 2010 and August 2011. Empirical stroke and bleeding risks were assessed by using the congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2) and Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores, respectively. Separately, physicians were asked to categorize their patients' stroke and bleeding risks: low risk (<3%); intermediate risk (3%-6%); and high risk (>6%). Overall, 72% (n=7251) in ORBIT-AF had high-risk CHADS2 scores (≥2). However, only 16% were assessed as high stroke risk by physicians. Although 17% (n=1749) had high ATRIA bleeding risk (score ≥5), only 7% (n=719) were considered so by physicians. The associations between empirical and physician-estimated stroke and bleeding risks were low (weighted Kappa 0.1 and 0.11, respectively). Physicians weighed hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus less significantly than empirical models in estimating stroke risk; physicians weighted anemia and dialysis less significantly than empirical models when estimating bleeding risks. Anticoagulation use was highest among patients with high stroke risk, assessed by either empirical model or physician estimates. In contrast, physician and empirical estimates of bleeding had limited impact on treatment choice. CONCLUSIONS: There is little agreement between provider-assessed risk and empirical scores in AF. These differences may explain, in part, the current divergence of anticoagulation treatment decisions from guideline recommendations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.
Authors: Jonathan P Piccini; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Jack E Ansell; Gregg C Fonarow; Bernard J Gersh; Alan S Go; Elaine M Hylek; Peter R Kowey; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Laine E Thomas; Melissa H Kong; Renato D Lopes; Roger M Mills; Eric D Peterson Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Stavros Apostolakis; Deirdre A Lane; Yutao Guo; Harry Buller; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Julie C Lauffenburger; Joel F Farley; Anil K Gehi; Denise H Rhoney; M Alan Brookhart; Gang Fang Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 2.778
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: 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: Valeria Raparelli; Marco Proietti; Carmelo Buttà; Paolo Di Giosia; Domenico Sirico; Paolo Gobbi; Salvatore Corrao; Giovanni Davì; Anna Rita Vestri; Francesco Perticone; Gino Roberto Corazza; Francesco Violi; Stefania Basili Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Matthew W Sherwood; Aakriti Gupta; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Zhuokai Li; Jonathan Piccini; J Kevin Harrison; David Dai; Amit N Vora; Michael J Mack; David R Holmes; John S Rumsfeld; David J Cohen; Vinod H Thourani; Ajay J Kirtane; Eric D Peterson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 6.546