首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Healthcare >Variation in Anticoagulant Recommendations by the Guidelines and Decision Tools among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
【2h】

Variation in Anticoagulant Recommendations by the Guidelines and Decision Tools among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

机译:房颤患者中指南和决策工具对抗凝药物建议的差异

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Published atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines and decision tools offer oral anticoagulant (OAC) recommendations; however, they consider stroke and bleeding risk differently. The aims of our study are: (i) to compare the variation in OAC recommendations by the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, the 2014 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines and two published decision tools by Casciano and LaHaye; (ii) to compare the concordance with actual OAC use in the overall study population and the population stratified by stroke/bleed risk. A cross-sectional study using the 2001–2013 Lifelink claims data was used to contrast the treatment recommendations by these decision aids. CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED algorithms were used to stratify 15,129 AF patients into nine stroke/bleed risk groups to study the variation in treatment recommendations and concordance with actual OAC useon-use. The AHA guidelines which were set to recommend OAC when CHA2DS2-VASc = 1 recommended OAC most often (86.30%) and the LaHaye tool recommended OAC the least often (14.91%). OAC treatment recommendations varied considerably when stroke risk was moderate or high (CHA2DS2-VASc > 0). Actual OAC useon-use was highly discordant (>40%) with all of the guidelines or decision tools reflecting substantial opportunities to improve AF OAC decisions.
机译:已发布的房颤(AF)指南和决策工具提供了口服抗凝剂(OAC)的建议;但是,他们对中风和出血风险的看法不同。我们研究的目的是:(i)比较2012年美国胸科医师学院指南,2012年欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)指南,2014年美国心脏协会(AHA)指南和两项已发表的OAC建议的差异Casciano和LaHaye的决策工具; (ii)比较总体研究人群和中风/出血风险分层人群中OAC实际使用的一致性。使用2001-2013年Lifelink索赔数据进行的横断面研究用于对比这些决策辅助工具的治疗建议。 CHA2DS2-VASc和HAS-BLED算法用于将15129名AF患者分为9个卒中/出血风险组,以研究治疗建议的差异以及与实际使用OAC /不使用OAC的一致性。当CHA2DS2-VASc = 1时,AHA指南建议使用OAC,最常建议使用OAC(86.30%),而LaHaye工具最不建议使用OAC(14.91%)。当卒中风险为中或高(CHA2DS2-VASc> 0)时,OAC治疗建议差异很大。 OAC的实际使用/不使用高度不一致(> 40%),所有指南或决策工具均反映出改善AF OAC决策的大量机会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号