Michał Mazurek1, Menno V Huisman2, Gregory Y H Lip3. 1. University of Birmingham, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, City Hospital, United Kingdom; Department of Cardiology, Congenital Heart Diseases and Electrotherapy, Silesian Medical University, Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases, Zabrze, Poland. 2. Department of Medicine-Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands. 3. University of Birmingham, Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, City Hospital, United Kingdom; Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark. Electronic address: g.y.h.lip@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent improvements in atrial fibrillation diagnosis and management have prompted the initiation of various registries, predominantly to assess adherence to new guidelines but also to address the pending questions of safety and effectiveness of newly introduced management options in "real-world" clinical practice settings. In this review, we appraise antithrombotic treatment patterns for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation registries. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Science Direct, and the Cochrane databases for registries focusing on stroke thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Registry data show that over the last decade, the proportion of patients receiving oral anticoagulation has increased (from ∼67% to >80%), whereas the proportion of those treated with aspirin only or untreated has diminished. Vitamin K antagonists are being replaced gradually by non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants as the more prevalent option. Regional and country differences in anticoagulation are evident, with its highest uptake in Europe (90.2%) and lowest in Asia (57.4%). Moreover, oral anticoagulation is given to approximately 50% of patients with no stroke risk factors, whereas more than one third of high-risk subjects are not anticoagulated but often prescribed antiplatelet therapy alone or untreated. Guideline-nonadherent thromboprophylaxis results in an increase in all-cause mortality and thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Registry data show that despite an increase in anticoagulation rates over the last decade, management gaps in stroke prevention are still evident with approximately one third of patients not treated in line with the guidelines. Mortality rates of atrial fibrillation patients remain relatively high, mostly because of the comorbid disease.
BACKGROUND: Recent improvements in atrial fibrillation diagnosis and management have prompted the initiation of various registries, predominantly to assess adherence to new guidelines but also to address the pending questions of safety and effectiveness of newly introduced management options in "real-world" clinical practice settings. In this review, we appraise antithrombotic treatment patterns for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation registries. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Science Direct, and the Cochrane databases for registries focusing on stroke thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Registry data show that over the last decade, the proportion of patients receiving oral anticoagulation has increased (from ∼67% to >80%), whereas the proportion of those treated with aspirin only or untreated has diminished. Vitamin K antagonists are being replaced gradually by non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants as the more prevalent option. Regional and country differences in anticoagulation are evident, with its highest uptake in Europe (90.2%) and lowest in Asia (57.4%). Moreover, oral anticoagulation is given to approximately 50% of patients with no stroke risk factors, whereas more than one third of high-risk subjects are not anticoagulated but often prescribed antiplatelet therapy alone or untreated. Guideline-nonadherent thromboprophylaxis results in an increase in all-cause mortality and thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Registry data show that despite an increase in anticoagulation rates over the last decade, management gaps in stroke prevention are still evident with approximately one third of patients not treated in line with the guidelines. Mortality rates of atrial fibrillationpatients remain relatively high, mostly because of the comorbid disease.
Authors: James A Reiffel; Atul Verma; Peter R Kowey; Jonathan L Halperin; Bernard J Gersh; Rolf Wachter; Erika Pouliot; Paul D Ziegler Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Utibe R Essien; Jared W Magnani; Nemin Chen; Walid F Gellad; Michael J Fine; Inmaculada Hernandez Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: William H Seligman; Zofia Das-Gupta; Adedayo O Jobi-Odeneye; Elena Arbelo; Amitava Banerjee; Andreas Bollmann; Bridget Caffrey-Armstrong; Daniel A Cehic; Ramon Corbalan; Michael Collins; Gopi Dandamudi; Prabhakaran Dorairaj; Matthew Fay; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Shinya Goto; Christopher B Granger; Bathory Gyorgy; Jeff S Healey; Jeroen M Hendriks; Mellanie True Hills; F D Richard Hobbs; Menno V Huisman; Kate E Koplan; Deirdre A Lane; William R Lewis; Trudie Lobban; Benjamin A Steinberg; Christopher J McLeod; Spencer Moseley; Adam Timmis; Guo Yutao; A John Camm Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-03-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ştefan Cristian Vesa; Sonia Irina Vlaicu; Octavia Sabin; Vitalie Văcăraș; Sorin Crișan; Sabina Istratoaie; Fatuma Samantar; Daciana Elena Popa; Antonia Eugenia Macarie; Anca Dana Buzoianu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 3.390