BACKGROUND: Multiple registries have reported that >40% of high-risk atrial fibrillation patients are not taking oral anticoagulants. The purpose of our study was to determine the presence or absence of active atrial fibrillation and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 y, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke [or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism], Vascular disease, Age 65-74 y, Sex category) risk factors to accurately identify high-risk atrial fibrillation (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥2) patients requiring oral anticoagulants and the magnitude of the anticoagulant treatment gap. METHODS: We retrospectively adjudicated 6514 patients with atrial fibrillation documented by at least one of: billing diagnosis, electronic medical record encounter diagnosis, electronic medical record problem list, or electrocardiogram interpretation. RESULTS: After review, 4555/6514 (69.9%) had active atrial fibrillation, while 1201 had no documented history of atrial fibrillation and 758 had a history of atrial fibrillation that was no longer active. After removing the 1201 patients without a confirmed atrial fibrillation diagnosis, oral anticoagulant use in high-risk patients increased to 71.1% (P < .0001 compared with 62.9% at baseline). Oral anticoagulant use increased to 79.7% when the 758 inactive atrial fibrillation patients were also eliminated from the analysis (P < .0001 compared with baseline). In the active high-risk atrial fibrillation group, there was no significant difference in the use of oral anticoagulants between men (80.7%) and women (78.8%) with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥2, or in women with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥3 (79.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Current registries and health system health records with unadjudicated diagnoses overreport the number of high-risk atrial fibrillation patients not taking oral anticoagulants. Expert adjudication identifies a smaller treatment gap than previously described.
Introduction Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) in patients with myocardial ischemia requiring hemodynamic support can be refractory to available antiarrhythmic agents and even to cardioversion and defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to report the effect of intravenous ibutilide in patients with a VT and/or VF storm in the presence of incomplete revascularization requiring hemodynamic support. Methods and results Standard continuous telemetry and frequent 12‐lead electrocardiograms were obtained to determine the effect of intravenous Ibutilide in these patients. We studied six consecutive patients (age 60 ± 12 years; five males) with incomplete revascularization and mechanical support (extracorporeal membrane of oxygenation = 2; left ventricular assist device = 4) with VT/VF refractory to lidocaine and amiodarone. Intravenous ibutilide was given as a last resort for management of their ventricular arrhythmias. Intravenous ibutilide (1‐2 mg) allowed restoration of sinus rhythm in three patients with persistent VF that were refractory to multiple defibrillation shocks. When the 24‐hour period before and after ibutilide administration was compared, this drug markedly reduced the number of required cardioversions/defibrillations in all patients from 20 ± 9 to 0.7 ± 0.8 shocks ( P = 0.036). Conclusions In patients with myocardial ischemia requiring hemodynamic support, intravenous Ibutilide demonstrates a potent antiarrhythmic effect and can facilitate defibrillation in patients with refractory VF.
Introduction: Guidelines recommend oral anticoagulants (OAC) in high risk atrial fibrillation (HRAF) patients. It has been reported that >40% of such patients are not taking an OAC. We observed that active AF often was not present in patients labeled as having AF (either because of wrong diagnosis or no AF in last 5 years). Hypothesis: We undertook a systematic electronic medical record (EMR) review to determine the presence or absence of active AF to accurately identify HRAF patients requiring an OAC. Methods: We reviewed 6514 patients with presumed AF and 2 or more outpatient visits documented by at least one of: billing diagnosis, EMR encounter diagnosis, EMR problem list, or EKG interpretation. Results: Active AF was noted in 4555/6514 patients (69.7%) after 1959 patients with no prior history of AF or inactive AF were withdrawn from further analysis. In active AF patients, 3869 had HRAF with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥2. OAC use was statistically higher (p<0.0001 by McNamer’s test) in the active HRAF group [3090/3869 (79.9%) compared to the presumed HRAF group (62.9%)], Figure 1. There was no statistically significant difference in the use of OAC between men (80.7%) and women (78.8%), even in women with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥3 (79.9%). In HRAF patients not taking an OAC (20.1%), expert review frequently disagreed with that recommendation suggesting that OACs can be taken in up to 92% of HRAF patients. Conclusions: 1) Current registries with un-adjudicated EMR diagnoses over-report the number of HRAF patients not taking an OAC; 2) Expert adjudication of active AF diagnosis identifies a smaller OAC treatment gap than previously described; 3) absolute contraindication or repeated refusal to take an OAC exists in less than 10% of HRAF patients; and, 4) there were no gender differences in OAC use.
Stroke is the most common complication of atrial fibrillation (AF). Guidelines recommend anticoagulant treatment in patients with CHA2DS2VASc scores of >2. Registry data suggests that almost half of patients who should be on therapeutic anticoagulation for stroke prevention in AF (SPAF) are not. Warfarin and more recently developed agents, the “novel anticoagulants” (NOACs) reduce the risk of embolic strokes. In addition, the NOACs also reduce intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) by over 50% compared to warfarin. Anticoagulation and bridging strategies involving cardioversion, catheter ablation, and invasive/surgical procedures are reviewed. The development of reversal agents for NOACs and the introduction of left atrial appendage occluding devices will evolve the use of newer strategies for preventing stroke in high risk AF patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.