Factors relevant to preventing embolic stroke in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation

Preference-Based Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Clinical Decision Making

Background. Patient preferences and expert-generated clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment decisions may not be identical. The authors compared the thresholds for antithrombotic treatment from studies that determined or modeled the treatment preferences of patients with atrial fibrillation with recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Methods. Methods included MEDLINE identification, systematic review, and pooling with some reanalysis of primary data from relevant studies. Results. Eight pertinent studies, including 890 patients, were identified. These studies used 3 methods (decision analysis, probability tradeoff, and decision aids) to determine or model patient preferences. All methods highlighted that the threshold above which warfarin was preferred over aspirin was highly variable. In 6 of 8 studies, patient preferences indicated that fewer patients would take warfarin compared to the recommendations of the guidelines. In general, at a stroke rate of 1% with aspirin, half of the participants would prefer warfarin, and at a rate of 2% with aspirin, two thirds would prefer warfarin. In 3 studies, warfarin must provide at least a 0.9% to 3.0% per year absolute reduction in stroke risk for patients to be willing to take it, corresponding to a stroke rate of 2% to 6% on aspirin. Conclusions. For patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines often differ from patient preferences, with substantial heterogeneity in their individual preferences. Since patient preferences can have a substantial impact on the clinical decision-making process, acknowledgment of their importance should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Practicing physicians need to balance the patient preferences with the treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.

Hemorrhagic complications of oral anticoagulant therapy

Hemorrhage is the major complication of anticoagulant therapy. The criteria for classifying the severity of bleeding has varied between studies, which has resulted in variability in the rate of bleeding reported in the literature. The major determinants of oral anticoagulant-related bleeding are the intensity of the anticoagulant effect, baseline patient characteristics, and the length of therapy. Older patients have characteristics that may place them at higher risk for anticoagulant-related bleeding, but they also have characteristics that make them more likely to benefit. The risk for anticoagulant-related bleeding cannot be considered in isolation and the potential benefits need to be weighed carefully in each individual patient, irregardless of age.

Prospective evaluation of an index for predicting the risk of major bleeding in outpatients treated with warfarin

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and clinical utility of the Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index for estimating the probability of major bleeding in outpatients treated with warfarin. The index was previously derived in a retrospective cohort of 556 patients from a different hospital (derivation cohort).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 264 outpatients starting warfarin (validation cohort) to validate the index prospectively. All patients were identified upon hospital discharge, and physician estimates of the probability of major bleeding were obtained before discharge in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

Major bleeding occurred in 87 of 820 outpatients (6.5%/yr). The index included four independent risk factors for major bleeding: age 65 years or greater; history of gastrointestinal bleeding; history of stroke; and one or more of four specific comorbid conditions. In the validation cohort, the index predicted major bleeding: the cumulative incidence at 48 months was 3% in 80 low-risk patients, 12% in 166 intermediate-risk patients, and 53% in 18 high-risk patients (c index, 0.78). The index performed better than physicians, who estimated the probability of major bleeding no better than expected by chance. Of the 18 episodes of major bleeding that occurred in high-risk patients, 17 were potentially preventable.

CONCLUSIONS

The Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index prospectively classified patients according to risk of major bleeding and performed better than physicians. Major bleeding may be preventable in many high-risk patients by avoidance of over-anticoagulation and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents.

Cost-effectiveness of preference-based antithrombotic therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Recent atrial fibrillation guidelines recommend the incorporation of patient preferences into the selection of antithrombotic therapy. However, no trial has examined how incorporating such preferences would affect quality-adjusted survival or medical expenditure. We compared 10-year projections of quality-adjusted survival and medical expenditure associated with two atrial fibrillation treatment strategies: warfarin-for-all therapy versus preference-based therapy. The preference-based strategy prescribed whichever antithrombotic therapy, warfarin or aspirin, had the greater projected quality-adjusted survival.

METHODS

We used decision analysis stratified by the number of stroke risk factors (history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, hypertension, diabetes, or heart disease). The base case focused on compliant 65-year-old patients who had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and no contraindications to antithrombotic therapy.

RESULTS

In patients whose only risk factor for stroke was atrial fibrillation, preference-based therapy improved projected quality-adjusted survival by 0.05 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and saved $670. For patients who had atrial fibrillation and one additional risk factor for stroke, preference-based therapy improved quality-adjusted survival by 0.02 QALY and saved $90. In patients who had atrial fibrillation and multiple additional risk factors for stroke, preference-based therapy increased medical expenditures and did not improve quality-adjusted survival substantially. The benefits of preference-flexible therapy arose from the minority of patients who would have had a longer quality-adjusted survival if they had been prescribed aspirin rather than warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

As do risks of stroke and of hemorrhage, patients' preferences help to determine which antithrombotic therapy is optimal. Preference-based treatment should improve quality-adjusted survival and reduce medical expenditure in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and not more than one additional risk factor for stroke.

Failure to prescribe warfarin to patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To determine how often warfarin was prescribed to patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation in our community in 1992 when randomized trials had demonstrated that warfarin could prevent stroke with little increase in the rate of hemorrhage, and to determine whether warfarin was prescribed less frequently to older patients-the patients at highest risk of stroke but of most concern to physicians in terms of the safety of warfarin.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study. Appropriateness of warfarin was classified for each patient based on the independent judgments of three physicians applying relevant evidence and guidelines.

SETTING

Two teaching hospitals and five community-based practices.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation (n = 189).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Warfarin was prescribed to 44 (23%) of the 189 patients. Warfarin was judged appropriate in 98 patients (52%), of whom 36 (37%) were prescribed warfarin. Warfarin was prescribed to 11 (14%) of 76 patients aged 75 years or older with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or past stroke, the group at highest risk of stroke. In a multivariable logistic regression model controlling for appropriateness of warfarin and other patient characteristics, patients aged 75 years or older were less likely than younger patients to be treated with warfarin (odds ratio 0.25; 95% confidence interval 0.10, 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Warfarin was prescribed infrequently to these patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation, especially the older patients and even the patients for whom warfarin was judged appropriate. These findings indicate a substantial opportunity to prevent stroke.

Why isn't warfarin prescribed to patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the opinions of selected physicians in our community about use of warfarin for patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation, and to determine the relation of the physicians' opinions to their practices.

DESIGN

Survey of physicians, using eight hypothetical clinical vignettes to characterize physicians' opinions about use of warfarin in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation, according to patient age, risk of bleeding, and risk of stroke.

SETTING

Two teaching hospitals and five community-based practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty physicians who cared for 189 consecutive patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The survey response rate was 73%. Nearly all responding physicians (90%) recommended warfarin for at least one vignette. However, physicians recommended warfarin less often for vignettes depicting 85-year-old patients than for matched vignettes depicting 65-year-old patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01, 0.08), and less often for cases with specified risk factors for bleeding than for matched cases without the risk factors (OR 0.01; 95% CI 0.004, 0.03); warfarin was recommended more often for cases with a recent stroke than for matched cases without this history (OR 8.2; 95% CI 3.6, 18). In practice, warfarin was prescribed more often (p < or = .05) by physicians reporting good personal experience and by those who had favorable opinions about its use. However, even physicians with good experience and favorable opinions did not prescribe warfarin to half of their patents for whom warfarin was independently judged appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' opinions frequently opposed warfarin for older patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation, and for those with bleeding risk factors. Physicians' opinions, as well as other barriers to warfarin therapy, most likely contribute to its infrequent prescription.

Service provision and use of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation

Several large trials have shown that the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvar atrial fibrillation is reduced by treatment with warfarin. Implementing this research evidence requires not only an understanding of the trials' results and of the changes that they imply for clinicians' treatment decisions but also an appreciation of the organisation, quantity, and quality of services required to support these changes. Understanding of these implications is crucial for developing services that allow changes in practice to produce reductions in stroke incidence while minimising the risks of treatment. This article considers the developments in service provision that will probably be required to support the changes in clinical practice suggested by the trials' results. These services will be provided largely by doctors, and their development has implications for doctors in both primary and secondary care.

Atrial fibrillation and anticoagulation: from randomised trials to practice

Randomised trials confirm that anticoagulants reduce the risk of emboli in atrial fibrillation. To apply this evidence to practice, we developed an expression relating all relevant factors. Trial-based estimates of the risks of emboli and haemorrhage, and of the effects of anticoagulants on these risks were used to derive the extent to which haemorrhage has to be seen to be more detrimental than emboli to justify not using anticoagulants. Information from other studies was used to assess the risks for the types of patients not included in the trials. Haemorrhage needs to be assessed as being at least six times more detrimental than emboli to warrant withholding anticoagulants from patients like those in the trials. Only in patients with lone atrial fibrillation and in those with features suggesting a bleeding risk six times higher than the trials' average would a perception of equal detriment risk justify not giving anticoagulation.