Key result
Physicians' adherence to integrated atrial fibrillation management based on the ABC pathway was suboptimal, with only 43.8% of patients receiving A+B+C-adherent management.
Why the study?
The ABC pathway simplifies holistic atrial fibrillation management, but adherence to it and major gaps in care needed evaluation in the Balkan region.
What are the rates and predictors of adherence to the ABC pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=2,712)
Yes
What are the rates and predictors of adherence to the ABC pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Physicians' adherence to the integrated ABC pathway for atrial fibrillation management in the Balkan region is suboptimal (43.8%), highlighting the need for targeted approaches to address clinical and system-related factors.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Predictor identification may inform targeted AF quality efforts; leaves open outcome impact of improved ABC adherence.
INTRODUCTION: The Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway provides a useful way of simplifying decision‑making considerations in a holistic approach to atrial fibrillation management. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate adherence to the ABC pathway and to determine major gaps in adherence in patients in the BALKAN‑AF survey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this ancillary analysis, patients from the BALKAN‑AF survey were divided into the following groups: A (avoid stroke) + B (better symptom control) + C (cardiovascular and comorbidity risk management)-adherent and -nonadherent management. RESULTS: Among 2712 enrolled patients, 1013 (43.8%) patients with mean (SD) age of 68.8 (10.2) years and mean CHA2DS2‑VASc score of 3.4 (1.8) had A+B+C-adherent management and 1299 (56.2%) had A+B+C-nonadherent management. Independent predictors of increased A+B+C-adherent management were: capital city (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46; P = 0.02), treatment by cardiologist (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.66; P = 0.01), hypertension (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.74-2.77; P <0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = 0.01), and multimorbidity (the presence of 2 or more long‑ term conditions) (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.43-2.38; P <0.001). Independent predictors of decreased A+B+C-adherent management were: age 80 years or older (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.76; P <0.001) and history of bleeding (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.33-0.75; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' adherence to integrated AF management based on the ABC pathway was suboptimal. Addressing the identified clinical and system‑related factors associated with A+B+C-nonadherent management using targeted approaches is needed to optimize treatment of patients with AF in the Balkan region.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kozieł et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=2,712). A+B+C-adherent management (ABC pathway) vs. A+B+C-nonadherent management was evaluated on A+B+C-adherent management. Physicians' adherence to integrated atrial fibrillation management based on the ABC pathway was suboptimal, with only 43.8% of patients receiving A+B+C-adherent management.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: