Oral anticoagulant adequacy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in primary care: A cross-sectional study using real-world data (fantas-tic study)

0Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Oral anticoagulants (OAs) are the treatment to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulant treatment choice in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) must be indi-vidualized, taking current guidelines into account. Adequacy of anticoagulant therapy under the current criteria for NVAF in real-world primary care is presented. Methods: Cross-sectional study, with real-world data from patients treated in primary care (PC). Data were obtained from the System for the Improvement of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database, covering 60,978 NVAF-anticoagulated patients from 287 PC centers in 2018. Results: In total, 41,430 (68%) were treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and 19,548 (32%) NVAF with direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Inadequate prescription was estimated to be 36.0% and 67.6%, respectively. Most DOAC inadequacy (77.3%) was due to it being prescribed as a first-line anticoagulant when there was no history of thromboembolic events or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). A total of 22.1% had missing estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values. Common causes of inadequate VKA prescription were poor control of time in therapeutic range (TTR) (98.8%) and ICH (2.2%). Conclusions: Poor adequacy to current criteria was observed, being inadequacy higher in DOACs than in VKAs. TTR and GFR should be routinely calculated in electronic health records (EHR) to facilitate decision-making and patient safety.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rosa Dalmau Llorca, M., Martín, C. A., Carrasco-Querol, N., Rojas, Z. H., Drago, E. F., Cumplido, D. R., … Fernández-Sáez, J. (2021). Oral anticoagulant adequacy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in primary care: A cross-sectional study using real-world data (fantas-tic study). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052244

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free