Why the study?
Ensuring optimal anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients is mandatory to reduce thromboembolic risk, and telemedicine offers potential advantages for their long-term management.
Does telemedicine improve the management of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to face-to-face consultations?
Does telemedicine improve the management of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to face-to-face consultations?
This consensus document provides practical recommendations supporting telemedicine for the long-term management of oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation, particularly emphasizing the utility of DOACs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports cautious telemedicine use for stable AF anticoagulation follow-up now; leaves open outcome benefits versus usual care in trials.
Compared with face-to-face consultations, telemedicine has many advantages, including more efficient use of healthcare resources, partial relief of the burden of care, reduced exposure to COVID-19, treatment adjustment, organization of more efficient healthcare circuits and patient empowerment. Ensuring optimal anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients is mandatory if we want to reduce the thromboembolic risk. Of note, telemedicine is an excellent option for the long-term management of atrial fibrillation patients. Moreover, direct oral anticoagulants may provide an added value in telemedicine (versus vitamin K antagonists), as it is not necessary to monitor anticoagulant effect or make continuous dosage adjustments. In this multidisciplinary consensus document, the role of telemedicine in anticoagulation of this population is discussed and practical recommendations are provided.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barrios et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: