Steven A Lubitz1, Shaan Khurshid2, Lu-Chen Weng3, Gheorghe Doros4, Joseph Walker Keach5, Qi Gao4, Anil K Gehi6, Jonathan C Hsu7, Matthew R Reynolds8, Mintu P Turakhia9, Thomas M Maddox10. 1. Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: slubitz@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Cardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medicine, Denver Health Hospital Authority, Denver, Colorado. 6. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Diego, California. 8. Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, Massachusetts; Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. 9. Division of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 10. Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and elevated stroke risk are not prescribed oral anticoagulation (OAC) despite evidence of benefit. Identification of factors associated with OAC non-prescription could lead to improvements in care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using NCDR PINNACLE, a United States-based ambulatory cardiology registry, we examined factors associated with OAC non-prescription in patients with non-valvular AF at elevated stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) between January 5, 2008 and December 31, 2014. Among 674,841 patients, 57% were treated with OAC (67% of whom were treated with warfarin). OAC prescription varied widely (28%-75%) across preselected strata of age, stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc), and bleeding risk (HAS-BLED), generally indicating that older patients at high stroke and low bleeding risk are commonly treated with OAC. Other factors associated with OAC non-prescription included reversible AF etiology; female sex; liver, renal, or vascular disease; and physician versus non-physician provider. Antiplatelet use was common (57%) and associated with the greatest risk of OAC non-prescription (odds ratio [OR] 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.39-4.49). CONCLUSIONS: In this registry of AF patients, older patients at elevated stroke and low bleeding risk were commonly treated with OAC. However, a variety of factors were associated with OAC non-prescription. Specifically, antiplatelet use was prevalent and associated with the highest likelihood of OAC non-prescription. Future studies are warranted to understand provider and patient rationale that may underlie observed associations with OAC non-prescription.
BACKGROUND: Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and elevated stroke risk are not prescribed oral anticoagulation (OAC) despite evidence of benefit. Identification of factors associated with OAC non-prescription could lead to improvements in care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using NCDR PINNACLE, a United States-based ambulatory cardiology registry, we examined factors associated with OAC non-prescription in patients with non-valvular AF at elevated stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) between January 5, 2008 and December 31, 2014. Among 674,841 patients, 57% were treated with OAC (67% of whom were treated with warfarin). OAC prescription varied widely (28%-75%) across preselected strata of age, stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc), and bleeding risk (HAS-BLED), generally indicating that older patients at high stroke and low bleeding risk are commonly treated with OAC. Other factors associated with OAC non-prescription included reversible AF etiology; female sex; liver, renal, or vascular disease; and physician versus non-physician provider. Antiplatelet use was common (57%) and associated with the greatest risk of OAC non-prescription (odds ratio [OR] 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.39-4.49). CONCLUSIONS: In this registry of AF patients, older patients at elevated stroke and low bleeding risk were commonly treated with OAC. However, a variety of factors were associated with OAC non-prescription. Specifically, antiplatelet use was prevalent and associated with the highest likelihood of OAC non-prescription. Future studies are warranted to understand provider and patient rationale that may underlie observed associations with OAC non-prescription.
Authors: Raluca Ionescu-Ittu; Michal Abrahamowicz; Cynthia A Jackevicius; Vidal Essebag; Mark J Eisenberg; Willy Wynant; Hugues Richard; Louise Pilote Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-07-09
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Brian F Gage; Carl van Walraven; Lesly Pearce; Robert G Hart; Peter J Koudstaal; B S P Boode; Palle Petersen Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Morten Lamberts; Jonas Bjerring Olesen; Martin Huth Ruwald; Carolina Malta Hansen; Deniz Karasoy; Søren Lund Kristensen; Lars Køber; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Gunnar Hilmar Gislason; Morten Lock Hansen Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: C Michael Gibson; Roxana Mehran; Christoph Bode; Jonathan Halperin; Freek W Verheugt; Peter Wildgoose; Mary Birmingham; Juliana Ianus; Paul Burton; Martin van Eickels; Serge Korjian; Yazan Daaboul; Gregory Y H Lip; Marc Cohen; Steen Husted; Eric D Peterson; Keith A Fox Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Renate B Schnabel; Xiaoyan Yin; Philimon Gona; Martin G Larson; Alexa S Beiser; David D McManus; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven A Lubitz; Jared W Magnani; Patrick T Ellinor; Sudha Seshadri; Philip A Wolf; Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ajay K Kakkar; Iris Mueller; Jean-Pierre Bassand; David A Fitzmaurice; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Shinya Goto; Sylvia Haas; Werner Hacke; Gregory Y H Lip; Lorenzo G Mantovani; Alexander G G Turpie; Martin van Eickels; Frank Misselwitz; Sophie Rushton-Smith; Gloria Kayani; Peter Wilkinson; Freek W A Verheugt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David D Berg; Christian T Ruff; Petr Jarolim; Robert P Giugliano; Francesco Nordio; Hans J Lanz; Michele F Mercuri; Elliott M Antman; Eugene Braunwald; David A Morrow Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Elizabeth Y Wang; Olivia L Hulme; Shaan Khurshid; Lu-Chen Weng; Seung Hoan Choi; Allan J Walkey; Jeffrey M Ashburner; David D McManus; Daniel E Singer; Steven J Atlas; Emelia J Benjamin; Patrick T Ellinor; Ludovic Trinquart; Steven A Lubitz Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-02-12
Authors: Terri Victoria Newman; Nico Gabriel; Qinfeng Liang; Coleman Drake; Samar R El Khoudary; Chester B Good; Walid F Gellad; Inmaculada Hernandez Journal: J Manag Care Spec Pharm Date: 2022-02
Authors: Melina Gattellari; Andrew Hayen; Dominic Y C Leung; Nicholas A Zwar; John M Worthington Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 2.497