Key result
Case-based surveys of 101 US physicians revealed that most cardiologists use validated risk scores for AF, whereas over half of PCPs rely on clinical experience, highlighting educational needs.
Cross-Sectional (n=101)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
There is a significant educational need among US cardiologists and PCPs regarding the use of validated risk scores, newer AF guidelines, and newer anticoagulants.
The objective is to identify practice patterns and attitudes of and barriers faced by US physicians assessing thromboembolism/stroke risk and managing anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) to determine educational needs. Case-based surveys were used to assess practice patterns, guideline use, barriers, and attitudes; 51 cardiologists and 50 primary care physicians (PCPs) were surveyed. Most cardiologists use validated risk scoring systems to assess thromboembolism/stroke risk, and more than half of PCPs use clinical experience. Assessment of bleeding risk varied; more than half of respondents rely on clinical judgment or patient bleeding history. The most commonly used prophylactic agents are warfarin/another vitamin K antagonist (PCPs) or antiplatelet agents (cardiologists). Newer anticoagulants are used less frequently. Bleeding risk, need for frequent monitoring (vitamin K antagonists), and medication costs were the most significant barriers. Cardiologists and PCPs could benefit from education on validated scoring systems to assess risk of thromboembolism/stroke and bleeding in AF, on newly released AF guidelines, and on newer anticoagulants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Glauser et al. (2014) conducted a cross-sectional in Atrial fibrillation (n=101). Case-based surveys was evaluated on Practice patterns, guideline use, barriers, and attitudes. Case-based surveys of 101 US physicians revealed that most cardiologists use validated risk scores for AF, whereas over half of PCPs rely on clinical experience, highlighting educational needs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: