| Literature DB >> 31651245 |
Fumiko Ono1, Sayako Akiyama1, Akifumi Suzuki2,3, Yoshinobu Ikeda4, Akira Takahashi5, Hitoshi Matsuoka6, Masahiro Sasaki7, Tomonori Okamura8, Nariaki Yoshihara9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care coordination between general practitioners (GPs) and cardiovascular specialists is expected to play a key role in establishing appropriate oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of care coordination on oral anticoagulant therapy in the management of AF in Japan.Entities:
Keywords: Aging society; Anticoagulants; Atrial fibrillation; Care coordination; Opportunistic screening in primary care; Regional medical care
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31651245 PMCID: PMC6813967 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-019-1216-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Characteristics of newly diagnosed AF patients
| Pre-campaign period | Campaign period | |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 32 (37.2) | 40 (44.4) |
| Age, y | ||
| Median (IQR) | 80.5 (75, 87) | 82.5 (76, 87) |
| Mean ± SD | 80.8 ± 8.1 | 81.3 ± 7.2 |
| Risk factors for ischemic stroke | ||
| CHF | 29 (33.7) | 36 (40.0) |
| Hypertension | 64 (74.4) | 68 (75.6) |
| Age ≥ 75 years | 67 (77.9) | 72 (80.0) |
| Diabetes | 22 (25.6) | 13 (14.4) |
| History of stroke/TIA | 16 (18.6) | 22 (24.4) |
| CHADS2 score | ||
| 0 | 4 (4.7) | 6 (6.7) |
| 1 | 13 (15.1) | 10 (11.1) |
| ≥ 2 | 69 (80.2) | 74 (82.2) |
| Median (IQR) | 2 (2, 3) | 3 (2, 3) |
Data are n (%), unless otherwise stated
Abbreviations: AF Atrial fibrillation, CHF Congestive heart failure, IQR Interquartile range, SD Standard deviation, TIA Transient ischemic attack
Implementation of care coordination
| Pre-campaign period | Campaign period | |
|---|---|---|
| Referral to cardiovascular specialists | 6 (7.0) | 14 (15.6) |
| Patients with care coordination | 3 (3.5) | 13 (14.4) |
Data are n (%)
Patient characteristics in patients with and without care coordination during the campaign period
| Characteristic | With care coordination | Without care coordination |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 5 (38.5) | 35 (45.5) |
| Age, y | ||
| Median (IQR) | 79 (76, 86) | 83 (76, 87) |
| Mean ± SD | 81.1 ± 7.9 | 81.4 ± 7.2 |
| Type of AF | ||
| Paroxysmal | 4 (30.8) | 23 (29.9) |
| Persistent | 5 (38.5) | 30 (39.0) |
| Permanent | 3 (23.1) | 13 (16.9) |
| Other/unknown | 1 (7.7) | 11 (14.3) |
| Risk factor for ischemic stroke | ||
| CHF | 6 (46.2) | 30 (39.0) |
| Hypertension | 11 (84.6) | 57 (74.0) |
| Age ≥ 75 y | 11 (84.6) | 61 (79.2) |
| Diabetes | 0 (0.0) | 13 (16.9) |
| History of stroke/TIA | 1 (7.7) | 21 (27.3) |
| CHADS2 score | ||
| 0 | 0 (0.0) | 6 (7.8) |
| 1 | 3 (23.1) | 7 (9.1) |
| ≥ 2 | 10 (76.9) | 64 (83.1) |
| Median (IQR) | 2 (2, 3) | 3 (2, 3) |
Data are n (%), unless otherwise stated
Abbreviations: AF Atrial fibrillation, CHF Congestive heart failure, IQR Interquartile range, SD Standard deviation, TIA Transient ischemic attack
Antithrombotic therapy in patients with and without care coordination during the campaign period
| With care coordination | Without care coordination | |
|---|---|---|
| Antithrombotic therapy | 11 (84.6) | 59 (76.6) |
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 9 (69.2) | 53 (68.8) |
| Warfarin | 1 (11.1) | 10 (18.9) |
| DOACs | 8 (88.9) | 43 (81.1) |
| Antiplatelet agents | 2 (15.4) | 8 (10.4) |
| CHADS2 score low (score: 0) | ||
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 0 (0.0) | 2 (33.3) |
| Warfarin | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| DOACs | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) |
| CHADS2 score intermediate (score: 1) | ||
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 2 (66.7) | 7 (100.0) |
| Warfarin | 0 (0.0) | 3 (42.9) |
| DOACs | 2 (100.0) | 4 (57.1) |
| CHADS2 score high (score: ≥2) | ||
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 7 (70.0) | 44 (68.8) |
| Warfarin | 1 (14.3) | 7 (15.9) |
| DOACs | 6 (85.7) | 37 (84.1) |
| OAC therapy based on JCS 2013 guidelines | 9 (69.2) | 55 (71.4) |
Data are n (%)
Abbreviations: JCS 2013 Japanese guidelines for pharmacotherapy of atrial fibrillation, DOACs Direct oral anticoagulants
Comparison of antithrombotic therapy between the pre-campaign and campaign periods
| Pre-campaign period | Campaign period | |
|---|---|---|
| Antithrombotic therapy | 60 (69.8) | 70 (77.8) |
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 52 (60.5) | 62 (68.9) |
| Warfarin | 11 (21.2) | 11 (17.7) |
| DOACs | 41 (78.8) | 51 (82.3) |
| Antiplatelet agents | 12 (14.0) | 10 (11.1) |
| CHADS2 score low (score, 0) | ||
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 4 (100.0) | 2 (33.3) |
| Warfarin | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| DOACs | 4 (100.0) | 2 (100.0) |
| CHADS2 score Intermediate (score, 1) | ||
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 7 (53.8) | 9 (90.0) |
| Warfarin | 1 (14.3) | 3 (33.3) |
| DOACs | 6 (85.7) | 6 (66.7) |
| CHADS2 score high (score, ≥2) | ||
| Oral anticoagulant agents | 41 (59.4) | 51 (68.9) |
| Warfarin | 10 (24.4) | 8 (15.7) |
| DOACs | 31 (75.6) | 43 (84.3) |
| OAC therapy based on JCS 2013 guidelines | 48 (55.8) | 64 (71.1) |
Data are n (%)
Abbreviations: JCS 2013 Japanese guidelines for pharmacotherapy of atrial fibrillation, DOACs Direct oral anticoagulants
Patient-reported outcomes in patients with and without care coordination during the campaign period
| With care coordination | Without care coordination | |
|---|---|---|
| MMAS-8 | ||
| Total score, median (IQR) | 1 (1, 1.5) | 1 (0.75, 1) |
| Adherence levela, n (%) | ||
| Low | 13 (100.0) | 22 (100.0) |
| Medium | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| High | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| ACTS score | ||
| Burden | ||
| Burden score, median (IQR) | 57.5 (55, 60) | 59 (57, 60) |
| Global question about burdens (Item 13), median (IQR) | 1 (1, 2) | 1 (1, 1) |
| Benefit | ||
| Benefit score, median (IQR) | 10.5 (9, 12) | 12.5 (11, 15) |
| Global question about benefits (Item 17), median (IQR) | 3 (3, 3) | 4 (3, 5) |
Use of the©MMAS is protected by US and International copyright laws. Permission for use is required. A license agreement is available from: Donald E. Morisky, MMAS Research (MORISKY) 16,636 159th Place SE, Renton WA 98058, dmorisky@gmail.com
Abbreviations: MMAS-8 Morisky 8-Item Medication Adherence Scale, ACTS Anti-Clot Treatment Scale, IQR Interquartile range
aAdherence level: low adherence, total score < 6; medium adherence, total score 6 to < 8; high adherence, total score = 8