Why the study?
The optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation has not been definitively resolved and requires an individualized approach.
How did the prescribing patterns of antithrombotic therapy change for patients with myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation between 2016 and 2021?
How did the prescribing patterns of antithrombotic therapy change for patients with myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation between 2016 and 2021?
The prescription of oral anticoagulants and triple antithrombotic therapy for patients with concurrent myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation significantly increased from 2016 to 2021, reflecting the successful adoption of clinical recommendations.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Trends in ATT prescribing for MI with AF evolved 2016-2021; leaves open optimal regimen questions for prospective trials.
INTRODUCTION: At present, the issue of optimal antithrombotic therapy (ATT) in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been finally resolved, it requires an individual approach and is of interest for study. AIM: To study the dynamics of prescribing ATT to patients with AF of non-valvular etiology hospitalized in cardiology hospital in 20162021 for MI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 599 patients with MI and AF: in 20162017 104 patients, in 20182019 256 patients, in 20202021 239 patients. The median and interquartile range of age of patients hospitalized in 20162017 were 70 (61.0; 78.0) years, in 20182019 71 (65.0; 79.3) years, in 20202021 72 (65.0; 80.0) years, p = 0.09. RESULTS: In 20162017, 76.9% of patients with MI and AF were prescribed double antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) from the first day of hospitalization; 16.3% of patients were prescribed therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs), here, in 6.7% as part of triple ATT, in 8.7% as part of double ATT (OACs + antiplatelet agent), in 1.0% as monotherapy with OACs; in 3.8% monotherapy with an antiplatelet agent was prescribed; in 2.9% of cases ATT was not prescribed. In 20182019, DAPT was used in 37.9% of cases; therapy with OACs in 54.7% of cases: in 44.9% cases as part of triple ATT, in 9.8% as part of double therapy; in 7.4% of cases monotherapy with antiplatelet agent was prescribed. In 20202021, DAPT was prescribed in 15.9% of cases; therapy with OACs in 74.5%, of them in 59.8% triple АТТ, in 14.2% double АТТ; monotherapy with an antiplatelet agent - in 7.5%; in 1.7% АТТ was not prescribed. CONCLUSION: In the study, the frequency of prescription of triple ATT to patients with AF and MI in 20202021 increased 1.3 times as compared to 20182019, and 8.9 times as compared to 20162017 and made 59.8% (p 0.001 for all periods). The frequency of OAC also increased 1.3 times as compared to 20182019 and 4.6 times as compared to 20162017 and made 74.5% (p 0.001 for all periods). This dynamics of increase in the frequency of prescription of oral anticoagulants to patients with a combination of AF and MI should be considered a positive result of introduction of the Clinical recommendations in the treatment of cardiologic patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Korshikova et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: