Why the study?
To investigate the prevalence of AF, the proportion of AF patients not receiving OAC, and reasons for abstaining from OAC treatment.
A high AF prevalence of 4.7% was found in a Swedish county, with nearly 10% of eligible patients undertreated with OACs, highlighting a gap in stroke prevention.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Undertreatment gap in eligible AF patients persists in routine care; leaves open optimal implementation strategies to improve OAC uptake.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF), the proportion of AF patients not receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) and reasons for abstaining from OAC treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study of patients aged 18 years or older with an AF diagnosis on June 1st 2020 in Västernorrland County, Sweden. AF diagnosis was retrieved using the ICD10 code I.48, and medical records were reviewed for comorbidities and documented reasons to abstain OAC treatment. RESULTS: Of 197 274 residents in Västernorrland County, 4.7% (9 304/197 274) had a documented AF diagnosis. Of these, 19% (1 768/9 304) had no OAC treatment, including 4.2% (393/9 304) with no indication, 2.5% (233/9 304) with a questionable and 2.5% (231/9 304) with a documented clear contraindication for OAC. In total 9.8% (911/9 304) were not treated with OAC despite indication and no reasonable documented contraindication, thus 90.8% (8 447/9 304) of all AF-patients were eligible for OAC treatment. Common reasons for abstaining treatment without reasonable contraindication were present sinus rhythm in 13.7% (125/911), perceived not an OAC candidate in 10.6% (97/911) and anemia in the past in 4.3% (39/911). CONCLUSIONS: In the population of Västernorrland County, a very high AF prevalence of 4.7% was found, of which just over 90% would theoretically benefit from OAC treatment. This is higher than previously reported and stresses the importance of stroke prevention in this large patient group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lilja et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: