scholarly journals Screening and management of atrial fibrillation in primary care

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n379
Author(s):  
Shiva P Ponamgi ◽  
Konstantinos C Siontis ◽  
David R Rushlow ◽  
Jonathan Graff-Radford ◽  
Victor Montori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Therapeutic Agents ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Medical Illness ◽  
Hospital Services ◽  
Common Chronic Disease

AbstractAtrial fibrillation is a common chronic disease seen in primary care offices, emergency departments, inpatient hospital services, and many subspecialty practices. Atrial fibrillation care is complicated and multifaceted, and, at various points, clinicians may see it as a consequence and cause of multi-morbidity, as a silent driver of stroke risk, as a bellwether of an acute medical illness, or as a primary rhythm disturbance that requires targeted treatment. Primary care physicians in particular must navigate these priorities, perspectives, and resources to meet the needs of individual patients. This includes judicious use of diagnostic testing, thoughtful use of novel therapeutic agents and procedures, and providing access to subspecialty expertise. This review explores the epidemiology, screening, and risk assessment of atrial fibrillation, as well as management of its symptoms (rate and various rhythm control options) and stroke risk (anticoagulation and other treatments), and offers a model for the integration of the components of atrial fibrillation care.

A national survey of the management of atrial fibrillation with antithrombotic drugs in Italian primary care

2010 ◽  
Vol 103 (05) ◽  
pp. 968-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Filippi ◽  
Marianna Alacqua ◽  
Warren Cowell ◽  
Annabelle Shakespeare ◽  
Lorenzo Mantovani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Risk Profile ◽  
Antithrombotic Drugs ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Primary Care Data ◽  
Males And Females

SummaryThe aims of this study were to investigate trends in the incidence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), and to identify factors associated with the prescription of antithrombotics (ATs) and to identify the persistence of patients with oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment in primary care. Data were obtained from 400 Italian primary care physicians providing information to the Health Search/Thales Database from 2001 to 2004. The age-standardised incidence of AF was: 3.9–3.0 cases, and 3.6–3.0 cases per 1,000 person-years in males and females, respectively. During the study period, 2,016 (37.2%) patients had no prescription, 1,663 (30.7%) were prescribed an antiplatelet (AP) agent, 1,440 (26.6%) were prescribed an OAC and 301 (5.5%) had both prescriptions. The date of diagnosis (p = 0.0001) affected the likelihood of receiving an OAC. AP, but not OAC, use significantly increased with a worsening stroke risk profile using the CHADS2 risk score. Older age increased the probability (p < 0.0001) of receiving an AP, but not an OAC. Approximately 42% and 24% of patients persisted with OAC treatment at one and two years, respectively, the remainder interrupted or discontinued their treatment. Underuse and discontinuation of OAC treatment is common in incident AF patients. Risk stratification only partially influences AT management.

scholarly journals 2135 Impact of primary care physician gatekeeping on medication prescriptions for atrial fibrillation

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 82-83
Author(s):  
Andrew Y. Chang ◽  
Mariam Askari ◽  
Jun Fan ◽  
Paul A. Heidenreich ◽  
P. Michael Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Health Plans ◽  
Odds Ratios ◽  
Antiplatelet Medication ◽  
Number Of Patients

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered arrhythmia in clinical practice, and has widely varying treatments for stroke prevention and rhythm management. Some of these therapies are increasingly being prescribed by primary care physicians (PCPs). We therefore sought to investigate if healthcare plans with PCP gatekeeping for access to specialists are associated with different pharmacologic treatment strategies for the disease. In particular, we focused on oral anticoagulants (OACs), non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulants (NOACs), rate control, and rhythm control medications. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We examined a commercial pharmaceutical claims database (Truven Marketscan™) to compare the prescription frequency of OAC, rate control, and rhythm control medications used to treat AF between patients with PCP-gated health plans (where the PCP is the gatekeeper to specialist referral—i.e., HMO, EPO, POS) and patients with non-PCP-gatekeeper health plans (i.e., comprehensive, PPO, CHDP, HDHP). To control for potential confounders, we also used multivariable logistic regression models to calculate adjusted odds ratios which accounted for age, sex, region, Charlson comorbidity index, CHADS2Vasc score, hypertension, diabetes, stroke/transient ischemic attack, prior myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease, and antiplatelet medication use. We also calculated median time to therapy to determine if there was a difference in time to new prescription of these medications. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We found only small differences between patients in PCP-gated and non-PCP-gated plans regarding prescription proportion of anticoagulants at 90 days following new AF diagnosis (OAC 44.2% vs. 42%, p<0.01; warfarin 39.1% vs. 37.1%, p<0.01; NOAC 5.9% vs. 6.0%, p=0.64). We observed similar trends for rate control agents (76.4% vs. 73.4%, p<0.01) and rhythm control agents (24.4% vs. 24.6%, p=0.83). We found similar odds of OAC prescription at 90 days following new AF diagnosis between patients in PCP-gated and non-PCP-gated plans (adjusted OR for PCP-gated plans relative to non-gated plans: OAC 1.006, p=0.84; warfarin 1.054, p=0.08; NOAC 0.815, p=0.001; dabigatran 0.833, p=0.004; and rivaroxaban 0.181, p=0.02). We observed similar trends for rate control agents (1.166, p<0.0001) and rhythm control agents (0.927, p=0.03). Elapsed time until receipt of medication was similar between PCP-gated and non-gated groups [OAC 4±14 days (interquartile range) vs. 5±16 days, p<0.0001; warfarin 4±14 vs. 5±14, p<0.0001; NOAC 7±26 vs. 6±23, p=0.2937; rhythm control 13±35 vs. 13±34, p=0.8661; rate control 10±25 vs. 11±30, p<0.0001]. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We found that plans with PCP gatekeeping to specialist referrals were not associated with clinically meaningful differences in prescription rates or delays in time to prescription of oral anticoagulation, rate control, and rhythm control drug therapy. In some cases, PCP gatekeeping plans had very small but statistically significant lower odds of being prescribed NOACs. These findings suggest that PCP gatekeeping does not appear to be a major structural barrier in receipt of medications for AF, although non-PCP-gated plans may vary slightly favor facilitating the prescription of NOACs. Our findings that overall OAC prescriptions did not differ by PCP gating status may suggest completion of the rapid dissemination and uptake phase for most AF treatments. The small but statistically significant odds ratios favoring the non-PCP-gated populations in NOACs further suggests that in this newer drug group, the process is ongoing, with more specialists representing early adopters. Interestingly, the low primary care odds ratio of rivaroxaban use, relative to dabigatran, may be indicative of a gradient of uptake of later-generation NOACs, although interpretability is limited by the small number of patients in the rivaroxaban group.

Optimizing Heart Rate and Controlling Symptoms in Atrial Fibrillation

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Pragnesh Parikh ◽  
◽  
KL Venkatachalam ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Ventricular Rate ◽  
Control Methods ◽  
Novel Approaches

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia noted in clinical practice and its incidence and prevalence are on the rise. The single most important intervention is the evaluation and treatment of stroke risk. Once the risk for stroke has been minimized, controlling the ventricular rate and treating symptoms become relevant. In this review article, we emphasize the importance of confirming and treating the appropriate arrhythmia and correlating symptoms with rhythm changes. Furthermore, we evaluate some of the risk factors for AF that independently result in symptoms, underlining the need to treat these risk factors as part of symptom control. We then discuss existing and novel approaches to rate control in AF and briefly cover rhythm control methods.

Initiation of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation by primary care physicians: Results of a telephone survey

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Carlin ◽  
Alison Bond ◽  
Peter Gross ◽  
Alan Bell ◽  
James Douketis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Telephone Survey

scholarly journals Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation by Primary Care Physicians in Italy

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 771-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaetano Piccinocchi ◽  
Matteo Laringe ◽  
Bruno Guillaro ◽  
Giovanni Arpino ◽  
Roberto Piccinocchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Diagnosis And Management

scholarly journals The study on knowledge-attitude-practice of primary care physician toward anticoagulants therapy in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Shanghai of China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shasha Ye ◽  
Tianhao Wang ◽  
Arthur Liu ◽  
Ying Yu ◽  
Zhigang Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Work Experience ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Bachelor's Degree ◽  
Cluster Sampling ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Positive Attitudes

Abstract Background As the large number of CHS centers in China face the majority of NVAF patients, primary care physicians (PCPs) play the primary role in the prevention of embolization. Therefore, an awareness of anticoagulant management in NVAF patients must be brought into focus among PCPs in China. This study will help primary care physicians (PCPs) increase their awareness of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to prevent embolization.Method This was a cross-sectional observational study of 462 PCPs in community health service (CHS) centers across Shanghai. We used a self-administered questionnaire to collect data from September to December 2017. A stratified random cluster sampling was adopted in the 90 CHS centers with the family medicine residency program.Result Among 462 participants, 69.3% (320/462) of females with a medical bachelor’s degree and more than 10 years of work experience predominated in the 30 to 49 years of age group. The mean score for “knowledge,” “attitude” and “practices” of OAC therapy in NVAF patients among PCPs was 3.68±2.752, 53.62±7.148, and 37.63±10.336, respectively. The level of knowledge of OAC therapy in NVAF patients among PCPs was insufficient in over half (75.8%) of participants. The majority (89.8%) of PCPs had a positive attitude and 68.0% had modest performance in the anticoagulant management of NVAF patients.Conclusion The knowledge and behaviors of PCPs were insufficient in OAC therapy to prevent embolization in NVAF patients. The study also revealed the positive attitudes of participants, and their desire to learn the latest knowledge of OAC therapy.

Abstract 66: Current Attitudes and Practice Patterns of Using New and Emerging Therapies to Manage Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF): a National Assessment of Cardiologists and Primary Care Physicians

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory D Salinas ◽  
Caroline O Robinson ◽  
Nancy Roepke ◽  
B. S Burton ◽  
Debi Susalka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Case Vignette ◽  
Independent Evidence ◽  
Patient Chart ◽  
Emerging Therapies ◽  
Chart Audits

Introduction: Stroke prevention is a cornerstone in the management of patients with AF at higher risk for ischemic events. This study assessed physician barriers to management of AF patients, including gaps in clinical knowledge and application of tools and guidelines for reducing stroke risk. Awareness, perception, and confidence in adopting newer anticoagulants were investigated, particularly related to balancing risk with treatment goals, and knowledge sources sought by physicians. Methods: The data for this study, conducted from March 2011 to May 2011, were collected through the use of a nationally-distributed case vignette survey to cardiologists and primary care physicians (PCPs), as well as patient chart audits nested within the physician sample. Each component of this study was reviewed and approved by the Western Institutional Review Board (WIRB). Results: Surveys from 142 cardiologists and 250 PCPs, and 632 patient chart audits, were analyzed. Nearly half of cardiologists and more than 75% of PCPs surveyed identified uncertainty regarding stroke risk assessment and lack of awareness of tools to guide risk assessment as barriers to determining appropriate antithrombotic therapy. Case vignette assessment found that 44% of PCPs familiar with the CHADS2 risk assessment tool were unable to appropriately assign a risk score, and they were less likely than cardiologists (53% vs 85%) to use this tool in clinical practice. Consistent with their greater familiarity, 65% of cardiologists are very confident in using emerging anticoagulants, while only 40% of PCPs have comparable confidence. The most frequently sought and valued resources for information about emerging anticoagulants were clinical practice guidelines, journal articles, CME activities, and communication with physician peers. Conclusion: Knowledge gaps and clinical barriers exist among physicians for stroke risk assessment, anticoagulation management, and use of emerging therapies in patients with AF. Physicians seek independent evidence-based information when deciding how to incorporate new anticoagulants into practice. The data suggest that physicians value education on safety and efficacy of therapies as well as practical guidance on applying clinical data to practice.

Abstract 211: Association of Patient Characteristics With the Initiation of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin Among Anticoagulant Naive Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David R Walker ◽  
Jasmina Ivanova ◽  
Keith A Betts ◽  
Sapna Rao ◽  
Eric Q Wu
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Model ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Dabigatran Etexilate ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Categorical Variables

Background and Objective: Dabigatran etexilate (DE) and warfarin, both oral anticoagulants used for stroke risk reduction in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), have been or are being compared in several comparative effectiveness studies. Understanding patient characteristics of those prescribed DE vs. warfarin are important for interpreting such studies. The objective of this study is to identify the characteristics that differentiate NVAF patients prescribed DE versus warfarin as first-line anticoagulation. Methods: An online survey was administered in October 2012 to an established panel of cardiologists and primary care physicians (PCPs) in the US. Physicians were asked to identify medical charts of their patients diagnosed with NVAF and who had at least one prescription for DE or warfarin between 1/1/2011 and 6/30/2012. Patients were further required to be anticoagulant naïve prior to the first prescription of DE or warfarin. A computer generated random dice was applied to direct the random selection of the patients. Patient characteristics, comorbidities and clinical risk measures were compared between DE and warfarin patients using Chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. A logistic regression model was utilized to evaluate patient characteristics associated with DE vs. warfarin use among anticoagulant naïve NVAF patients. Results: A total of 288 physicians (144 cardiologists and 144 PCPs) completed the survey. 262 medical records for DE patients and 247 for warfarin patients were randomly selected. The mean age of the DE and warfarin patients, respectively were 61.6 and 65.8 years (p < 0.01). The proportion of females was 20.6% and 41.7% in the DE and warfarin patients respectively (p<0.01). 86.3% of DE patients vs. 68.4% of warfarin patients were Caucasian (p<0.01). Other differences between DE and warfarin patients respectively included: previous myocardial infarction (3.8%, 9.3%; p<0.05), previous transient ischemic attack (8.4%, 16.2%; p <0.01), and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc stroke risk score (2.21, 2.98; p<0.01). The logistic regression model found age (OR = 0.96; p=0.001), female gender (OR=0.46; p = 0.002), Hispanic/Latino (OR = 0.33; p=.007), Black (OR= 0.37; p = 0.006), and > 6 months and < 1 year for time from first NVAF diagnosis to first prescription date (OR = 0.38; p = 0.02) were associated with initiation of DE vs. warfarin. However, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc was not found to be a significant predictor of anticoagulant prescription. Conclusions: Patients who are younger, male, Caucasian, and recently diagnosed with NVAF were significantly more likely to be initiated by their physician on DE vs. warfarin. These findings should be considered when doing comparative analyses of outcomes between patients on DE vs. warfarin.

Significant decline in cancer diagnostic testing in U.S. CMS population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6536-6536
Author(s):  
Dave Smart ◽  
Peter Riccelli ◽  
Keith Kerr ◽  
Jordan Clark ◽  
Susanne Munksted Fosvig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Delayed Diagnosis ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Initial Diagnosis ◽  
Test Volume ◽  
The Us

6536 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused >400,000 infection related deaths in the US to January 2021. Actions taken to limit COVID-19 infection and mortality could potentially lead to unintended consequences, precipitating excess mortality due to other causes. One such cause is delayed cancer diagnosis. Significant decreases in presentation for cancer diagnosis at the primary care level have been noted in the UK. This study aimed to look for evidence of a similar effect in the US. Methods: CMS claims data from JAN18-JUN20 associated with primary diagnosis across 11 cancers (bladder, breast, cervical, colorectal, endometrial, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, sarcoma and thyroid) were analyzed for use of surgical pathology (SP), a procedure associated with initial diagnosis, and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Test volumes varied widely by test and cancer so were normalized to enable comparison across indications. This was done by dividing the month-on-month difference for the period JAN19-JUN19 vs JAN20-JUN20 by the median monthly test volume for the period JAN18-DEC19 (“pre-COVID period”). Extent and duration of declines in test rates and number of missing patients as the sum of these declines were then determined. The ratio of IHC to SP testing was taken to determine any decline in likely post-initial diagnosis testing. Results: There were significant (>10%) declines in test volumes for SP for all 11 cancers at some time in Q1-Q2 2020. Table. Extent, duration and return to pre-COVID levels for SP testing across 11 cancers Median extent and duration of the decline was 56% (range 41.1%-80.4%) and 2 months (range 1- >4). This equates to 32,192 missing diagnoses across all cancers. SP test volumes for all cancers except lung and breast had returned to around pre-COVID levels by JUN20. There was no significant (>10%) increase in normalized SP test volume after the COVID dip for any cancer. While SP showed decreased test volumes across all cancers at some point during the first half of 2020, test volume ratios of IHC to SP showed increases for most cancers in the same time period. Conclusions: These data highlight that the decline in patients presenting to their primary care physicians with suspicion of cancer for diagnostic investigation was linked to COVID-19 prevention strategies. No evidence for increased, “catch up” testing to address presentational/diagnostic backlog was observed. Thus, it is predicted that these patients may subsequently present with a more advanced cancer. Potential excess morbidity, mortality and cost associated with absent or delayed diagnosis should be factored into cancer control programs going forward.[Table: see text]

Risk of ischemic stroke in asymptomatic atrial fibrillation incidentally-detected in primary care compared with other clinical presentations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Wallenhorst ◽  
Carlos Martinez ◽  
Ben FREEDMAN
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Mortality Data ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Primary Hospital ◽  
Ischemic Stroke Risk ◽  
The Uk

Background: It is uncertain whether stroke risk of asymptomatic ambulatory atrial fibrillation (AA-AF) incidentally-detected in primary care is comparable with other clinical AF presentations in primary care or hospital. Methods: The stoke risk of 22,035 patients with incident non-valvular AF from the UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink with linkage to hospitalization and mortality data, was compared to 23,605 controls without AF (age and sex-matched 5:1 to 5,409 AA-AF patients). Incident AF included 5,913 with symptomatic ambulatory AF (SA-AF); 4,989 with Primary and 5,724 with non-Primary Hospital AF discharge diagnosis (PH-AF and Non-PH-AF); and 5,409 with AA-AF. Ischemic stroke adjusted subhazard ratios (aSHR) within 3 years of AA-AF were compared with SA-AF, PH-AF, Non-PH-AF and controls, accounting for mortality as competing risk and adjusted for ischemic stroke risk factors. Results: There were 1026 ischemic strokes in 49,544 person-years in patients with incident AF (crude incidence rate 2.1 ischemic strokes/100 person-years). Ischemic stroke aSHR over 3 years showed no differences between AA-AF, and SA-AF, PH-AF and nonPH-AF groups (aSHR 0.87-1.01 vs AA-AF). All AF groups showed a significantly higher aSHR compared to controls. (subhazard rate ratio 0.40 [0.34 - 0.47]. Conclusion: Ischemic stroke risk in patients with AA-AF incidentally-detected in primary care is far from benign, and not less than incident AF presenting clinically in general practice or hospital. This provides justification for identification of previously undetected AF, e.g. by opportunistic screening, and subsequent stroke prevention with thromboprophylaxis, to reduce the approximately 10% of ischemic strokes related to unrecognized AF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document