A Survey of Saudi General Practitioners on the Use of Thromboprophylaxis Guidelines and Risk Assessment Tools in Atrial Fibrillation

Clinical practice guidelines advise patients with atrial fibrillation who are at risk for stroke to undergo thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulants. However, it is noted that guidelines are not always followed. We sought to learn how Saudi Arabian general practitioners (GPs) self-reported using risk assessment tools and atrial fibrillation clinical practice guidelines created by cardiology associations, as well as how GPs felt about the resources that were available. Through the use of a self-administered questionnaire, we carried out a cross-sectional survey. A total of two-hundred GPs participated in the study. The guidelines were frequently used when a clinical decision regarding anticoagulation therapy appeared difficult (n = 57, 28.4%). The most predominant strengths of participants' chosen clinical guidelines were clear recommendations (n = 56, 27.9%), easy-to-follow algorithms (n = 39, 16.9%), detailed recommendations supported by evidence (n = 34, 16.9%), and online availability (n = 27, 13.4%). Many respondents said they used a formal stroke risk assessment tool in addition to their clinical judgment as a GP for most decisions (60%). Most respondents preferred using the CHA2DS2-VASc (n = 106, 52.7%), CHA2DS2-VA (n = 45, 22.4%), CHADS2 (n = 35, 17.4%), and GARFIELD (n = 14, 7.0%). HAS-BLED (n = 100, 49.8%) and HEMORR2HAGES (n = 50, 24.9%) were the most frequently utilized formal tools for assessing the risk of bleeding among GPs. Over half of the participants referred to guidelines when deciding thromboprophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation. Additionally, many respondents used formal procedures for assessing the risks of bleeding and stroke in addition to their clinical judgement in their roles as GPs. The guideline was assessed as being extremely helpful overall by GPs who used it to make thromboprophylaxis decisions.

Use of thromboprophylaxis guidelines and risk stratification tools in atrial fibrillation: A survey of general practitioners in Australia

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical guidelines produced by cardiology societies (henceforth referred to simply as 'clinical guidelines') recommend thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have moderate-to-high stroke risk. However, deviations from these recommendations are observed, especially in the primary healthcare setting. The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the self-reported use of AF clinical guidelines and risk stratification tools among Australian general practitioners (GPs), and their perceptions regarding the available resources.

METHOD

We conducted an online survey of Australian GPs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the findings.

RESULTS

Responses from 115 GPs were included for analysis. Respondents reported various ways of accessing thromboprophylaxis-related information (n = 113), including clinical guidelines (13.3%), 'Therapeutic Guidelines^© ' (37.2%) and Royal Australian College of General Practitioners websites (16.8%). Of those who reported reasons against accessing information from clinical guidelines (n = 97), the most frequent issues were: too many AF guidelines to choose from (34.0%; 33/97), different guidelines for different diseases (32.0%; 31/97), time-consuming to read guidelines (21.6%; 21/97), disagreements between different guideline recommendations (20.0%; 19/97), conflict with criteria for government subsidy (17.5%; 17/97) and GPs' busy schedules (15.5%; 15/97). When assessing patients' risk of stroke (n = 112) and bleeding (n = 111), the majority of the respondents reported primarily relying on a formal stroke risk (67.0%) and bleeding risk (55.0%) assessment tools, respectively. Respondents reported using formal stroke and bleeding risk assessment tools mainly when newly initiating patients on therapy (72.4%; 76/105 and 65.3%; 65/101, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Among our small sample of Australian GPs, most did not access thromboprophylaxis-related information directly from AF-specific clinical guidelines developed by cardiology societies. Although the majority reported using formal stroke and bleeding assessment tools, these were typically used on OAC initiation only. More focus is needed on formal risk reassessment as clinically indicated and at regular review.

Non-adherence to Thromboprophylaxis Guidelines in Atrial Fibrillation: A Narrative Review of the Extent of and Factors in Guideline Non-adherence

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia. It increases the risk of thromboembolism by up to fivefold. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to effectively mitigate thromboembolic events using oral anticoagulants while minimizing the risk of bleeding. This review focuses on non-adherence to contemporary guidelines and the factors associated with guideline non-adherence. The extent of guideline non-adherence differs according to geographic region, healthcare setting, and risk stratification tools used. Guideline adherence has gradually improved over recent years, but a significant proportion of patients are still not receiving guideline-recommended therapy. Physician-related and patient-related factors (such as patient refusals, bleeding risk, older age, and recurrent falls) also contribute to guideline non-adherence, especially to undertreatment. Quality improvement initiatives that focus on undertreatment, especially in the primary healthcare setting, may help to improve guideline adherence.

Exploring the Quality of Anticoagulant Prescribed for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation at the St John of God Hawkesbury District Health Centre, New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the clinical management of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its outcomes from an Australian perspective.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the appropriateness of antithrombotic prescribing for patients who presented with a diagnosis of AF to the Hawkesbury St John of God Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study reviewed patients admitted to St John of God Hawkesbury Hospital with AF between June 2016 and June 2017. We calculated stroke risk using the CHA2DS2-VASc score based on medical records and reviewed the appropriateness of oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescribing compared to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Patients were excluded if they had only 1 episode of AF that reverted either spontaneously or upon cardioversion without any documented recurrences.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients (18 years) were included, with 180 (90%) deemed eligible for anticoagulation. Of these 72.8% (n = 131) were prescribed an OAC. A total of 40.0% of patients at low risk of stroke and 68.4% at intermediate risk were prescribed an OAC, respectively. Apixaban was the direct OAC of choice with 36.6% of patients prescribed an OAC receiving apixaban. Warfarin was prescribed for 25.1% of the patients who were prescribed an OAC.

CONCLUSIONS

The underutilization of anticoagulant medication in high-risk groups and over utilization in low-risk groups remains an ongoing issue in contemporary AF management, and it highlights the need to improve AF-related stroke prevention in our jurisdiction.