Guideline Adherence of Antithrombotic Treatment Initiated by General Practitioners in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Danish Survey. Issue 7 (13th May 2013) - Brandes, Axel
Abstract Background The aim of this prospective survey was to describe the demographics, stroke risk profile, and the guideline adherence of antithrombotic treatment in a Danish primary care population of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Hypothesis We hypothesized that a significant proportion of patients with nonvalvular AF do not receive guideline‐adherent antithrombotic treatment in primary care. Methods We performed a cross‐sectional survey of antithrombotic treatment using data of AF patients from general practices. Results Sixty‐four general practitioners enrolled 1743 patients with a mean age of 74.8 ± 11.2 years. The mean CHADS2 and CHA2DS2‐VASc scores were 1.9 ± 1.3 and 3.5 ± 1.8, respectively. Of the patients, 12.4% and 4.04%, respectively, were at truly low risk, with a CHADS2 and CHA2DS2‐VASc score 0 (P < 0.001). A score of 1 was seen in 28.0% vs 9.0% (P < 0.001) of the patients. Of all patients, 66.3% were treated with oral anticoagulants, 18.7% with antiplatelet drugs only, and 15% received no antithrombotic therapy. Based on the CHADS2 score, 75.7% of the patients were treated in adherence with the guidelines, 16% were undertreated, and 8.4% overtreated. The corresponding numbers for the CHA2DS2‐VASc score were 75.4%, 22.7%, and 1.8%, respectively. The differences in guideline adherence applying the 2 scores were significant (P < 0.001). Of patients receiving no antithrombotic therapy, 64.1% were treated in adherence to the guidelines according to the CHADS2 score. Applying the CHA2DS2‐VASc score, this proportion was only 53.4%. Antiplatelet drug treatment was in adherence to the guidelines (CHADS2 and CHA2DS2‐VASc score of 1) in only 31% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Conclusions Antithrombotic treatment of AF patients is in general well performed in primary care in Denmark. Further improvements may be achieved by thorough stroke risk stratification on the basis of current evidence‐based guidelines.