Gerald V Naccarelli1, Mohammed Ruzieh2, Deborah L Wolbrette3, Mauricio Sendra-Ferrer4, John van Harskamp5, Barbara Bentz3, Gregory Caputo6, Nathan McConkey3, Kevin Mills3, Stephen Wasemiller7, Jovan Plamenac3, Douglas Leslie8, Frendy D Glasser5, Thomas W Abendroth9. 1. Penn State University Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa. Electronic address: gnaccarelli@pennstatehealth.psu.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 3. Penn State University Heart and Vascular Institute, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia. 5. Penn State University Center for Quality Innovation, Hershey, Pa. 6. Division of Internal Medicine, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa. 7. Monument Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Rapid City, SD. 8. Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa. 9. Penn State University Center for Quality Innovation, Hershey, Pa; Penn State University College of Medicine, Penn State Health, The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple registries have reported that >40% of high-risk atrial fibrillation patients are not taking oral anticoagulants. The purpose of our study was to determine the presence or absence of active atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 y, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke [or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism], Vascular disease, Age 65-74 y, Sex category) risk factors to accurately identify high-risk atrial fibrillation (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) patients requiring oral anticoagulants and the magnitude of the anticoagulant treatment gap. METHODS: We retrospectively adjudicated 6514 patients with atrial fibrillation documented by at least one of: billing diagnosis, electronic medical record encounter diagnosis, electronic medical record problem list, or electrocardiogram interpretation. RESULTS: After review, 4555/6514 (69.9%) had active atrial fibrillation, while 1201 had no documented history of atrial fibrillation and 758 had a history of atrial fibrillation that was no longer active. After removing the 1201 patients without a confirmed atrial fibrillation diagnosis, oral anticoagulant use in high-risk patients increased to 71.1% (P < .0001 compared with 62.9% at baseline). Oral anticoagulant use increased to 79.7% when the 758 inactive atrial fibrillation patients were also eliminated from the analysis (P < .0001 compared with baseline). In the active high-risk atrial fibrillation group, there was no significant difference in the use of oral anticoagulants between men (80.7%) and women (78.8%) with a CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2, or in women with a CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3 (79.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Current registries and health system health records with unadjudicated diagnoses over-report the number of high-risk atrial fibrillation patients not taking oral anticoagulants. Expert adjudication identifies a smaller treatment gap than previously described.
BACKGROUND: Multiple registries have reported that >40% of high-risk atrial fibrillationpatients are not taking oral anticoagulants. The purpose of our study was to determine the presence or absence of active atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 y, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke [or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism], Vascular disease, Age 65-74 y, Sex category) risk factors to accurately identify high-risk atrial fibrillation (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) patients requiring oral anticoagulants and the magnitude of the anticoagulant treatment gap. METHODS: We retrospectively adjudicated 6514 patients with atrial fibrillation documented by at least one of: billing diagnosis, electronic medical record encounter diagnosis, electronic medical record problem list, or electrocardiogram interpretation. RESULTS: After review, 4555/6514 (69.9%) had active atrial fibrillation, while 1201 had no documented history of atrial fibrillation and 758 had a history of atrial fibrillation that was no longer active. After removing the 1201 patients without a confirmed atrial fibrillation diagnosis, oral anticoagulant use in high-risk patients increased to 71.1% (P < .0001 compared with 62.9% at baseline). Oral anticoagulant use increased to 79.7% when the 758 inactive atrial fibrillationpatients were also eliminated from the analysis (P < .0001 compared with baseline). In the active high-risk atrial fibrillation group, there was no significant difference in the use of oral anticoagulants between men (80.7%) and women (78.8%) with a CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2, or in women with a CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3 (79.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Current registries and health system health records with unadjudicated diagnoses over-report the number of high-risk atrial fibrillationpatients not taking oral anticoagulants. Expert adjudication identifies a smaller treatment gap than previously described.