open access

Vol 14, No 4 (2019)
Original Papers
Published online: 2019-09-06
Get Citation

The evaluation of compliance with the guidelines for prevention of thromboembolic complications in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation

Iwona Gorczyca, Olga Jelonek, Anna Szpotowicz, Anna Stec, Justyna Tracz, Beata Wożakowska-Kapłon
DOI: 10.5603/FC.2019.0091
·
Folia Cardiologica 2019;14(4):333-341.

open access

Vol 14, No 4 (2019)
Original Papers
Published online: 2019-09-06

Abstract

Introduction. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular arrhythmia. It results in an increased frequency of thromboembolic complications and a higher death rate. The frequency of arrhythmia is steadily increasing, and a sustained growth in the number of patients with AF can be expected in the coming years. Thromboembolic episodes are the most serious complications of AF. Anticoagulant treatment, based on recommendations, is considered to be the priority action in patients with AF.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate compliance with guidelines for the prevention of thrombosis, recommended on discharge, in patients with non-valvular AF, who were hospitalised in a cardiology ward.

Methods and materials. 4,099 patients with non-valvular AF, who had been hospitalised and discharged from a cardiology ward between 2004 and 2012, were subject to a retrospective analysis. We assessed the risk of thromboembolic (via CHADS2 score) and haemorrhagic (via HAS-BLED score) complications, as well as data on comorbid conditions and the recommended anticoagulant prevention. The compliance of the prevention of thromboembolic complications with the guidelines was assessed according to the applied anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatment in particular groups of thromboembolism risk.

Results. The average age of the examined group was 70.6 (± 10.9) years. AF co-existed most frequently with the following diseases: hypertension (74.8%), ischaemic heart disease (56.7%), and heart failure (54.8%). A low risk of thromboembolic complications was reported in 7.2% of patients, whereas 25.4% were rated as moderate risk, and 67.4% as high thromboembolic risk. A high risk of bleeding was reported in 34.6% of patients. In the prevention of thromboembolic complications, an oral anticoagulant, in monotherapy or in combination with antiplatelet drugs, was recommended for 64% of patients on discharge. According to the guidelines, 66.9% of patients from the examined group qualified for the prevention of thromboembolic complications: 62.4% of those with a high risk of stroke, 86% of those with a moderate risk, and 41.1% of those without stroke risk factors. The highest percentage of patients treated pursuant to the guidelines in the chosen clinical situations was to be seen among patients after a thromboembolic episode (70.8%). We found that in 73.8% of patients aged 65–74, and in 55.2% of patients over the age of 80, anticoagulant prevention was applied in accordance with the guidelines.

Conclusions. On discharge from hospital, nearly two-thirds of patients with AF were subjected to the prevention of thromboembolic complications in accordance with the guidelines. Most often they belonged to the group of moderate risk, and least often to the group without thromboembolic risk factors. A high percentage of patients treated in line with the guidelines was seen in the patients who recovered from a thromboembolic episode. The percentage of patients with AF who were subjected to anticoagulant treatment in accordance with the guidelines decreased with age.

Abstract

Introduction. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular arrhythmia. It results in an increased frequency of thromboembolic complications and a higher death rate. The frequency of arrhythmia is steadily increasing, and a sustained growth in the number of patients with AF can be expected in the coming years. Thromboembolic episodes are the most serious complications of AF. Anticoagulant treatment, based on recommendations, is considered to be the priority action in patients with AF.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate compliance with guidelines for the prevention of thrombosis, recommended on discharge, in patients with non-valvular AF, who were hospitalised in a cardiology ward.

Methods and materials. 4,099 patients with non-valvular AF, who had been hospitalised and discharged from a cardiology ward between 2004 and 2012, were subject to a retrospective analysis. We assessed the risk of thromboembolic (via CHADS2 score) and haemorrhagic (via HAS-BLED score) complications, as well as data on comorbid conditions and the recommended anticoagulant prevention. The compliance of the prevention of thromboembolic complications with the guidelines was assessed according to the applied anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatment in particular groups of thromboembolism risk.

Results. The average age of the examined group was 70.6 (± 10.9) years. AF co-existed most frequently with the following diseases: hypertension (74.8%), ischaemic heart disease (56.7%), and heart failure (54.8%). A low risk of thromboembolic complications was reported in 7.2% of patients, whereas 25.4% were rated as moderate risk, and 67.4% as high thromboembolic risk. A high risk of bleeding was reported in 34.6% of patients. In the prevention of thromboembolic complications, an oral anticoagulant, in monotherapy or in combination with antiplatelet drugs, was recommended for 64% of patients on discharge. According to the guidelines, 66.9% of patients from the examined group qualified for the prevention of thromboembolic complications: 62.4% of those with a high risk of stroke, 86% of those with a moderate risk, and 41.1% of those without stroke risk factors. The highest percentage of patients treated pursuant to the guidelines in the chosen clinical situations was to be seen among patients after a thromboembolic episode (70.8%). We found that in 73.8% of patients aged 65–74, and in 55.2% of patients over the age of 80, anticoagulant prevention was applied in accordance with the guidelines.

Conclusions. On discharge from hospital, nearly two-thirds of patients with AF were subjected to the prevention of thromboembolic complications in accordance with the guidelines. Most often they belonged to the group of moderate risk, and least often to the group without thromboembolic risk factors. A high percentage of patients treated in line with the guidelines was seen in the patients who recovered from a thromboembolic episode. The percentage of patients with AF who were subjected to anticoagulant treatment in accordance with the guidelines decreased with age.

Get Citation

Keywords

atrial fibrillation, CHADS2, scale, stroke

About this article
Title

The evaluation of compliance with the guidelines for prevention of thromboembolic complications in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation

Journal

Folia Cardiologica

Issue

Vol 14, No 4 (2019)

Pages

333-341

Published online

2019-09-06

DOI

10.5603/FC.2019.0091

Bibliographic record

Folia Cardiologica 2019;14(4):333-341.

Keywords

atrial fibrillation
CHADS2
scale
stroke

Authors

Iwona Gorczyca
Olga Jelonek
Anna Szpotowicz
Anna Stec
Justyna Tracz
Beata Wożakowska-Kapłon

References (26)
  1. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991; 22(8): 983–988.
  2. Petersen P, Boysen G, Godtfredsen J, et al. Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic complications in chronic atrial fibrillation. The Copenhagen AFASAK study. Lancet. 1989; 1(8631): 175–179.
  3. Laupacis A, Connolly SJ, Gent M, et al. Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Anticoagulation (CAFA) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991; 18(2): 349–355.
  4. Marini C, Santis FDe, Sacco S, et al. Contribution of atrial fibrillation to incidence and outcome of ischemic stroke: results from a population-based study. Stroke. 2005; 36(6): 1115–1119.
  5. Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip G, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(19): 2369–2429.
  6. Camm AJ, Lip GYH, De Caterina R, et al. ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines-CPG, Document Reviewers, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(21): 2719–2747.
  7. Potpara TS, Stankovic GR, Beleslin BD, et al. A 12-year follow-up study of patients with newly diagnosed lone atrial fibrillation: implications of arrhythmia progression on prognosis: the Belgrade Atrial Fibrillation study. Chest. 2012; 141(2): 339–347.
  8. Alam M, Bandeali SJ, Shahzad SA, et al. Real-life global survey evaluating patients with atrial fibrillation (REALISE-AF): results of an international observational registry. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2012; 10(3): 283–291.
  9. Kopecky SL, Gersh BJ, McGoon MD, et al. The natural history of lone atrial fibrillation. A population-based study over three decades. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317(11): 669–674.
  10. Rienstra M, Hagens VE, Van Veldhuisen DJ, et al. RAte Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Study Group. Clinical characteristics of persistent lone atrial fibrillation in the RACE study. Am J Cardiol. 2004; 94(12): 1486–1490.
  11. Opolski G, Kosior DA, Kurzelewski M, et al. Polish RecordAF. Baseline characteristics of patients from Poland enrolled in the global registry of patients with recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (RecordAF). Kardiol Pol. 2010; 68(5): 546–554.
  12. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, Committee for Practice Guidelines, European Society of Cardiology, European Heart Rhythm Association, Heart Rhythm Society. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation). Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(16): 1979–2030.
  13. www. garfield.tri-london.ac.uk (9.08.2019).
  14. Nieuwlaat R, Capucci A, Camm AJ, et al. European Heart Survey Investigators. Atrial fibrillation management: a prospective survey in ESC member countries: the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26(22): 2422–2434.
  15. Nabauer M, Gerth A, Limbourg T, et al. The Registry of the German Competence NETwork on Atrial Fibrillation: patient characteristics and initial management. Europace. 2009; 11(4): 423–434.
  16. Meinertz T, Kirch W, Rosin L, et al. ATRIUM investigators. Management of atrial fibrillation by primary care physicians in Germany: baseline results of the ATRIUM registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011; 100(10): 897–905.
  17. Waldo AL, Becker RC, Tapson VF, et al. NABOR Steering Committee. Hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke are not being provided with adequate anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46(9): 1729–1736.
  18. Agarwal S, Bennett D, Smith DJ. Predictors of warfarin use in atrial fibrillation patients in the inpatient setting. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2010; 10(1): 37–48.
  19. Dinh T, Nieuwlaat R, Tieleman RG, et al. Antithrombotic drug prescription in atrial fibrillation and its rationale among general practitioners, internists and cardiologists in The Netherlands--The EXAMINE-AF study. A questionnaire survey. Int J Clin Pract. 2007; 61(1): 24–31.
  20. Chan PS, Maddox TM, Tang F, et al. Practice-level variation in warfarin use among outpatients with atrial fibrillation (from the NCDR PINNACLE program). Am J Cardiol. 2011; 108(8): 1136–1140.
  21. Rodríguez-Mañero M, Bertomeu-González V, Cordero A, et al. Trends in clinical profile and medical treatments of atrial fibrillation patients over the last 10 years. Rev Port Cardiol. 2013; 32(2): 103–109.
  22. Scowcroft ACE, Lee S, Mant J. Thromboprophylaxis of elderly patients with AF in the UK: an analysis using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) 2000-2009. Heart. 2013; 99(2): 127–132.
  23. Bednarski J, Cieszewska E, Strzelecki A, et al. Anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients in the clinical practice of a single district hospital in Poland. Kardiol Pol. 2013; 71(12): 1260–1265.
  24. Cowan C, Healicon R, Robson I, et al. The use of anticoagulants in the management of atrial fibrillation among general practices in England. Heart. 2013; 99(16): 1166–1172.
  25. Chae SH, Froehlich J, Morady F, et al. Prevalence and predictors of warfarin use in patients with atrial fibrillation at low or intermediate risk and relation to thromboembolic events. Clin Cardiol. 2011; 34(10): 640–644.
  26. Fang MC, Go AS, Chang Y, et al. A new risk scheme to predict warfarin-associated hemorrhage: the ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(4): 395–401.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

 

Wydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl