Methodologic Differences Across Studies of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Lead to Varying Estimates of Stroke Risk

Abstract

BackgroundGuidelines for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) assume that stroke risk scheme point scores correspond to fixed stroke rates. However, reported stroke rates vary widely across AF cohort studies, including studies from the same country. Reasons for this variation are unclear. This study compares methodologies used to assemble and analyze large AF cohorts worldwide and assesses potential bias in estimating stroke rates.Methods and ResultsFrom a previous systematic review of AF cohorts, we analyzed studies including at least 5000 patients. We assessed methods used to generate rates of ischemic stroke off anticoagulants, according to a structured inventory of database interrogation methods. Nine studies (497 578 total patients) met our criteria. Overall cohort stroke rates ranged from 0.45% to 7.03% per year. In bivariate study‐level analysis, multiple features were associated with higher stroke rates, including AF identified as inpatients versus outpatients (rate ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval, 1.19, 5.68), and lack of clinical validation of outcome events (rate ratio 4.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.06, 15.70). European studies reported rates more than 4‐fold higher than North American studies. International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding schemes for outcomes varied widely. Multiple high rate features coexisted in the same studies.ConclusionsAmong AF cohort studies, differences in the composition, method of assembly, determination of clinical features and outcomes, and analytic approach were strongly associated with reported stroke rates. Our study highlights the need for standardized and validated methodologies for AF cohort assembly and analysis to generate accurate stroke rates to better support anticoagulation guidelines for patients with AF.

Association of Race/Ethnicity With Oral Anticoagulant Use in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

“…It is, to our knowledge one of the first studies to compare baseline use of DOACs by race/ethnicity as well as the quality of DOAC use. The data were obtained from a prospectively assembled registry with detailed clinical information and close follow-up, thereby avoiding pitfalls of alternative designs, such as administrative database analyses …”

Validity of Simple Algorithms to Identify Recurrence of Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Two Danish Nationwide Registries

“…A BP is a time period immediately after an inception event (here index ICH), during which outcome events (here possible admissions for re-ICH) are ignored (Figure 2). 23,24 The underlying assumption when using a BP is that misclassification of recurrent events is to a certain degree time-dependent, ie, more distant admissions are more likely to represent true recurrent events compared with admissions immediately after the index event.…”

Short lookback periods causing exaggerated stroke risk estimates in atrial fibrillation may expose patients to unnecessary anticoagulant treatment

“…Claims databases often carry information for relatively short periods, corresponding to the time a person has a certain employment. Limiting lookback to 6 or 12 months is therefore often necessary in order to have sufficient time left over for follow‐up …”

“…Limiting lookback to 6 or 12 months is therefore often necessary in order to have sufficient time left over for follow-up. 17,18 Hospital databases are generally linked to a certain area, which puts constraints on observation periods as patients move out or in an area. In nationwide administrative registers, whole populations can be followed over prolonged periods of time, with left censoring when the register started or immigration and right censoring at Other large databases such as the CPRD in the UK have been operational about as long, but without full national coverage.…”