Dataset Information

Contemporary management of atrial fibrillation: update on anticoagulation and invasive management strategies.

ABSTRACT: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Its increasing prevalence, particularly among the elderly, renders it one of the most serious current medical epidemics. Several management questions confront the clinician treating a patient with AF: Should the condition be treated? Is the patient at risk of death or serious morbidity as a result of this diagnosis? If treatment is necessary, is rate control or rhythm control superior? Which patients need anticoagulation therapy, and for how long? This review of articles obtained by a search of the PubMed and MEDLINE databases presents the available evidence that can guide the clinician in answering these questions. After discussing the merits of available therapy, including medications aimed at controlling rate, rhythm, or both, we focus on the present status of ablative therapy for AF. Catheter ablation, particularly targeting the pulmonary veins, is being increasingly performed, although the precise indications for this approach and its effectiveness and safety are being actively investigated. We briefly discuss other invasive options that are less frequently used, such as pacemakers, defibrillators, left atrial appendage closure devices, and the surgical maze procedure.

SUBMITTER: Crandall MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2704137 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Contemporary management of atrial fibrillation: update on anticoagulation and invasive management strategies.

Crandall Mark A MA Bradley David J DJ Packer Douglas L DL Asirvatham Samuel J SJ

Mayo Clinic proceedings 20090701 7

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Its increasing prevalence, particularly among the elderly, renders it one of the most serious current medical epidemics. Several management questions confront the clinician treating a patient with AF: Should the condition be treated? Is the patient at risk of death or serious morbidity as a result of this diagnosis? If treatment is necessary, is rate control or rhythm control superior? Which patients need an ...[more]

PMID: 19567719

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAnticoagulation management services (AMSs; ie, warfarin clinics) have evolved to include patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown whether DOAC therapy management services improve outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).ObjectiveTo compare outcomes associated with 3 DOAC care models for preventing adverse anticoagulation-related outcomes among patients with AF.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 44 746 adult patients with a diagnosis of AF who initiated oral anticoagulation (DOAC or warfarin) between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, in 3 Kaiser Permanente (KP) regions. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2021 through May 2023.ExposuresEach KP region used an AMS to manage warfarin but used distinct approaches to DOAC care: (1) usual care (UC) by the prescribing clinician, (2) UC plus an automated population management tool (PMT), or (3) pharmacist-managed AMS care. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were estimated. Direct oral anticoagulant care models were first indirectly compared using warfarin as a common comparator within each region and then directly compared across regions.Main outcomes and measuresPatients were followed up until the first occurrence of an outcome (composite of thromboembolic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeding, or death), discontinuation of KP membership, or December 31, 2020.ResultsOverall, 44 746 patients were included: 6182 in the UC care model (3297 DOAC; 2885 warfarin), 33 625 in the UC plus PMT care model (21 891 DOAC; 11 734 warfarin), and 4939 in the AMS care model (2089 DOAC; 2850 warfarin). Baseline characteristics (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [10.6] years, 56.1% male, 67.2% non-Hispanic White, median CHA2DS2-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, female sex] score of 3 [IQR, 2-5]) were well balanced after IPTW. Over a median follow-up of 2 years, patients who received the UC plus PMT or AMS care model did not have significantly better outcomes than those who received UC. The incidence rate of the composite outcome was 5.4% per year for DOAC and 9.1% per year for warfarin for those in the UC group, 6.1% per year for DOAC and 10.5% per year for those in the UC plus PMT group, and 5.1% per year for DOAC and 8.0% per year for those in the AMS group. The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome comparing DOAC vs warfarin were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-1.05) in the UC group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90) in the UC plus PMT group, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in the AMS group (P = .62 for heterogeneity across care models). When directly comparing patients receiving DOAC, the IPTW-adjusted HR was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) for the UC plus PMT group vs the UC group and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.02) for the AMS group vs the UC group.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study did not find appreciably better outcomes for patients receiving DOAC who were managed by either a UC plus PMT or AMS care model compared with UC.

Dataset Information

Contemporary management of atrial fibrillation: update on anticoagulation and invasive management strategies.

Publications

Contemporary management of atrial fibrillation: update on anticoagulation and invasive management strategies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets