Abstract
Purpose "Rhythm" and "Rate" control strategies require partially different organization, and a different involvement of Specialists and General Practitioners; we verified whether the strategy assignment modified the approach to stroke prophylaxis. Methods Survey in general practice: 233 GPs identified all patients with codified atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis, checked the diagnosis (ECG/hospital discharge document), and filled a structured questionnaire on stroke risk-factors, prophylactic therapy, and reasons for warfarin non prescription in CHADS ≥ 2 patients. Data were collected as an "aggregate." Results Population observed: 295,906 patients aged > 14; 6,036 with confirmed AF; 5,888 with complete data about anti-thrombotic prophylaxis are analyzed here. In the "rhythm strategy" group 45.6% of the CHADS score ≥ 2 patients (594) were on warfarin, vs. 73.2% (1,741) in the "rate strategy" group (p <0.0001). Overall reasons for warfarin non-use were significantly different in the two groups: clinical contraindications (12.3% vs. 19.7%), side effects (5.5% vs. 8.5%), patients' refusal (12.2% vs. 15.2%), unreliable patient/care-giver (14.4% vs. 25.9%); reasons were unknown to the GP in 55.6% in rhythm control vs. 30.9% in rate control group. Conclusions Anti-thrombotic prophylaxis in CHADS ≥ 2 patients is different in subjects assigned to the Rhythm vs. the Rate control strategy, as well as reported reasons for warfarin non use. GPs do not know why warfarin is not used in a large percentage of cases, mainly in the rhythm control strategy group. Improving efforts should probably be differently tailored for patients assigned to the "rhythm" or the "rate" control strategy.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 314-317 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | European Journal of Internal Medicine |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2013 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Atrial fibrillation
- Rate vs. rhythm control
- Stroke prophylaxis
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Internal Medicine
Cite this
Stroke prophylaxis in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation : Rhythm vs. rate control strategy. / Filippi, Alessandro; Zoni-Berisso, Massimo; Ermini, Giuliano; Landolina, Maurizio; Brignoli, Ovidio; D'Ambrosio, Gaetano; Zingarini, Gianluca; Pedrinazzi, Claudio.
In: European Journal of Internal Medicine, Vol. 24, No. 4, 06.2013, p. 314-317.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Stroke prophylaxis in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation
T2 - Rhythm vs. rate control strategy
AU - Filippi, Alessandro
AU - Zoni-Berisso, Massimo
AU - Ermini, Giuliano
AU - Landolina, Maurizio
AU - Brignoli, Ovidio
AU - D'Ambrosio, Gaetano
AU - Zingarini, Gianluca
AU - Pedrinazzi, Claudio
PY - 2013/6
Y1 - 2013/6
N2 - Purpose "Rhythm" and "Rate" control strategies require partially different organization, and a different involvement of Specialists and General Practitioners; we verified whether the strategy assignment modified the approach to stroke prophylaxis. Methods Survey in general practice: 233 GPs identified all patients with codified atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis, checked the diagnosis (ECG/hospital discharge document), and filled a structured questionnaire on stroke risk-factors, prophylactic therapy, and reasons for warfarin non prescription in CHADS ≥ 2 patients. Data were collected as an "aggregate." Results Population observed: 295,906 patients aged > 14; 6,036 with confirmed AF; 5,888 with complete data about anti-thrombotic prophylaxis are analyzed here. In the "rhythm strategy" group 45.6% of the CHADS score ≥ 2 patients (594) were on warfarin, vs. 73.2% (1,741) in the "rate strategy" group (p <0.0001). Overall reasons for warfarin non-use were significantly different in the two groups: clinical contraindications (12.3% vs. 19.7%), side effects (5.5% vs. 8.5%), patients' refusal (12.2% vs. 15.2%), unreliable patient/care-giver (14.4% vs. 25.9%); reasons were unknown to the GP in 55.6% in rhythm control vs. 30.9% in rate control group. Conclusions Anti-thrombotic prophylaxis in CHADS ≥ 2 patients is different in subjects assigned to the Rhythm vs. the Rate control strategy, as well as reported reasons for warfarin non use. GPs do not know why warfarin is not used in a large percentage of cases, mainly in the rhythm control strategy group. Improving efforts should probably be differently tailored for patients assigned to the "rhythm" or the "rate" control strategy.
AB - Purpose "Rhythm" and "Rate" control strategies require partially different organization, and a different involvement of Specialists and General Practitioners; we verified whether the strategy assignment modified the approach to stroke prophylaxis. Methods Survey in general practice: 233 GPs identified all patients with codified atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis, checked the diagnosis (ECG/hospital discharge document), and filled a structured questionnaire on stroke risk-factors, prophylactic therapy, and reasons for warfarin non prescription in CHADS ≥ 2 patients. Data were collected as an "aggregate." Results Population observed: 295,906 patients aged > 14; 6,036 with confirmed AF; 5,888 with complete data about anti-thrombotic prophylaxis are analyzed here. In the "rhythm strategy" group 45.6% of the CHADS score ≥ 2 patients (594) were on warfarin, vs. 73.2% (1,741) in the "rate strategy" group (p <0.0001). Overall reasons for warfarin non-use were significantly different in the two groups: clinical contraindications (12.3% vs. 19.7%), side effects (5.5% vs. 8.5%), patients' refusal (12.2% vs. 15.2%), unreliable patient/care-giver (14.4% vs. 25.9%); reasons were unknown to the GP in 55.6% in rhythm control vs. 30.9% in rate control group. Conclusions Anti-thrombotic prophylaxis in CHADS ≥ 2 patients is different in subjects assigned to the Rhythm vs. the Rate control strategy, as well as reported reasons for warfarin non use. GPs do not know why warfarin is not used in a large percentage of cases, mainly in the rhythm control strategy group. Improving efforts should probably be differently tailored for patients assigned to the "rhythm" or the "rate" control strategy.
KW - Atrial fibrillation
KW - Rate vs. rhythm control
KW - Stroke prophylaxis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878336296&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878336296&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejim.2013.02.002
DO - 10.1016/j.ejim.2013.02.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 23474251
AN - SCOPUS:84878336296
VL - 24
SP - 314
EP - 317
JO - European Journal of Internal Medicine
JF - European Journal of Internal Medicine
SN - 0953-6205
IS - 4
ER -