Jeffrey M Ashburner1,2, Steven J Atlas1,2, Shaan Khurshid2,3, Lu-Chen Weng4, Olivia L Hulme4, Yuchiao Chang1,2, Daniel E Singer1,2, Patrick T Ellinor4, Steven A Lubitz5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Cardiovascular Research Center and Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Cardiovascular Research Center and Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. slubitz@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk are not treated with oral anticoagulants. OBJECTIVE: To test whether electronic notifications sent to primary care physicians increase the proportion of ambulatory patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted from February to May 2017 within 18 practices in an academic primary care network. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (n = 175) and their patients with atrial fibrillation, at elevated stroke risk, and not prescribed oral anticoagulants. INTERVENTION: Patients of each physician were randomized to the notification or usual care arm. Physicians received baseline email notifications and up to three reminders with patient information, educational material and primary care guidelines for anticoagulation management, and surveys in the notification arm. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed oral anticoagulants at 3 months in the notification (n = 972) vs. usual care (n = 1364) arms, compared using logistic regression with clustering by physician. Secondary measures included survey-based physician assessment of reasons why patients were not prescribed oral anticoagulants and how primary care physicians might be influenced by the notification. KEY RESULTS: Over 3 months, a small proportion of patients were newly prescribed oral anticoagulants with no significant difference in the notification (3.9%, 95% CI 2.8-5.3%) and usual care (3.2%, 95% CI 2.4-4.2%) arms (p = 0.37). The most common, non-exclusive reasons why patients were not on oral anticoagulants included atrial fibrillation was transient (30%) or paroxysmal (12%), patient/family declined (22%), high bleeding risk (20%), fall risk (19%), and frailty (10%). For 95% of patients, physicians stated they would not change their management after reviewing the alert. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic physician notification did not increase anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk. Primary care physicians did not prescribe anticoagulants because they perceived the bleeding risk was too high or stroke risk was too low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02950285.
BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk are not treated with oral anticoagulants. OBJECTIVE: To test whether electronic notifications sent to primary care physicians increase the proportion of ambulatory patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted from February to May 2017 within 18 practices in an academic primary care network. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (n = 175) and their patients with atrial fibrillation, at elevated stroke risk, and not prescribed oral anticoagulants. INTERVENTION: Patients of each physician were randomized to the notification or usual care arm. Physicians received baseline email notifications and up to three reminders with patient information, educational material and primary care guidelines for anticoagulation management, and surveys in the notification arm. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed oral anticoagulants at 3 months in the notification (n = 972) vs. usual care (n = 1364) arms, compared using logistic regression with clustering by physician. Secondary measures included survey-based physician assessment of reasons why patients were not prescribed oral anticoagulants and how primary care physicians might be influenced by the notification. KEY RESULTS: Over 3 months, a small proportion of patients were newly prescribed oral anticoagulants with no significant difference in the notification (3.9%, 95% CI 2.8-5.3%) and usual care (3.2%, 95% CI 2.4-4.2%) arms (p = 0.37). The most common, non-exclusive reasons why patients were not on oral anticoagulants included atrial fibrillation was transient (30%) or paroxysmal (12%), patient/family declined (22%), high bleeding risk (20%), fall risk (19%), and frailty (10%). For 95% of patients, physicians stated they would not change their management after reviewing the alert. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic physician notification did not increase anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk. Primary care physicians did not prescribe anticoagulants because they perceived the bleeding risk was too high or stroke risk was too low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02950285.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Mark Linzer; Asaf Bitton; Shin-Ping Tu; Margaret Plews-Ogan; Karen R Horowitz; Mark D Schwartz; Sara Poplau; Anuradha Paranjape; Michael Landry; Stewart Babbott; Tracie Collins; T Shawn Caudill; Arti Prasad; Allen Adolphe; David E Kern; KoKo Aung; Katherine Bensching; Kathleen Fairfield Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Leila H Borowsky; Susan Regan; Yuchiao Chang; Alison Ayres; Steven M Greenberg; Daniel E Singer Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Jonathan C Hsu; Thomas M Maddox; Kevin Kennedy; David F Katz; Lucas N Marzec; Steven A Lubitz; Anil K Gehi; Mintu P Turakhia; Gregory M Marcus Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Shirley V Wang; James R Rogers; Yinzhu Jin; David DeiCicchi; Sara Dejene; Jean M Connors; David W Bates; Robert J Glynn; Michael A Fischer Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-06-26 Impact factor: 7.035
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: Sean D Pokorney; Noelle Cocoros; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Kevin Haynes; Shuang Li; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay; Meighan Rogers Driscoll; Crystal Garcia; Sara B Calvert; Thomas Harkins; Robert Jin; Daniel Knecht; Mark Levenson; Nancy D Lin; David Martin; Debbe McCall; Cheryl McMahill-Walraven; Vinit Nair; Lauren Parlett; Andrew Petrone; Robert Temple; Rongmei Zhang; Yunping Zhou; Richard Platt; Christopher B Granger Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Jay Patel; Hammad Sadiq; John Catanzaro; Sybil Crawford; Adam Wright; Gordon Manning; Jeroan Allison; Kathleen Mazor; David McManus; Alok Kapoor Journal: Cardiovasc Digit Health J Date: 2021-07-17
Authors: Sachin J Shah; Margaret C Fang; Sun Y Jeon; Steven E Gregorich; Kenneth E Covinsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 5.562
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