Cargando…

Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians have expressed a need for tools to assist in selecting treatments for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a computerized antithrombotic risk assessment tool (CARAT) on general practitioners’ prescr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bajorek, Beata V., Magin, Parker J., Hilmer, Sarah N., Krass, Ines
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418212
http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160078
_version_ 1782443639381688320
author Bajorek, Beata V.
Magin, Parker J.
Hilmer, Sarah N.
Krass, Ines
author_facet Bajorek, Beata V.
Magin, Parker J.
Hilmer, Sarah N.
Krass, Ines
author_sort Bajorek, Beata V.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Clinicians have expressed a need for tools to assist in selecting treatments for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a computerized antithrombotic risk assessment tool (CARAT) on general practitioners’ prescribing of antithrombotics for patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 regions (in rural and urban settings) of general practice in New South Wales, Australia (January 2012–June 2013). General practitioner practices were assigned to an intervention arm (CARAT) or control arm (usual care). Antithrombotic therapy prescribing was assessed before and after application of CARAT. RESULTS: Overall, the antithrombotic therapies for 393 patients were reviewed by 48 general practitioners; we found no significant baseline differences in use of antithrombotics between the control arm and intervention arm. Compared with control patients, intervention patients (n = 206) were 3.1 times more likely to be recommended warfarin therapy (over any other treatment option; P < .001) and 2.8 times more likely to be recommended any anticoagulant (in preference to antiplatelet; P = .02). General practitioners agreed with most (75.2%) CARAT recommendations; CARAT recommended that 75 (36.4%) patients change therapy. After application of CARAT, the proportion of patients receiving any antithrombotic therapy was unchanged from baseline (99.0%); however, anticoagulant use increased slightly (from 89.3% to 92.2%), and antiplatelet use decreased (from 9.7% to 6.8%). CONCLUSION: Tools such as CARAT can assist clinicians in selecting antithrombotic therapies, particularly in upgrading patients from antiplatelets to anticoagulants. However, the introduction of novel oral anticoagulants has complicated the decision-making process, and tools must evolve to weigh the risks and benefits of these new therapy options.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4951074
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49510742016-08-10 Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013 Bajorek, Beata V. Magin, Parker J. Hilmer, Sarah N. Krass, Ines Prev Chronic Dis Original Research INTRODUCTION: Clinicians have expressed a need for tools to assist in selecting treatments for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a computerized antithrombotic risk assessment tool (CARAT) on general practitioners’ prescribing of antithrombotics for patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 regions (in rural and urban settings) of general practice in New South Wales, Australia (January 2012–June 2013). General practitioner practices were assigned to an intervention arm (CARAT) or control arm (usual care). Antithrombotic therapy prescribing was assessed before and after application of CARAT. RESULTS: Overall, the antithrombotic therapies for 393 patients were reviewed by 48 general practitioners; we found no significant baseline differences in use of antithrombotics between the control arm and intervention arm. Compared with control patients, intervention patients (n = 206) were 3.1 times more likely to be recommended warfarin therapy (over any other treatment option; P < .001) and 2.8 times more likely to be recommended any anticoagulant (in preference to antiplatelet; P = .02). General practitioners agreed with most (75.2%) CARAT recommendations; CARAT recommended that 75 (36.4%) patients change therapy. After application of CARAT, the proportion of patients receiving any antithrombotic therapy was unchanged from baseline (99.0%); however, anticoagulant use increased slightly (from 89.3% to 92.2%), and antiplatelet use decreased (from 9.7% to 6.8%). CONCLUSION: Tools such as CARAT can assist clinicians in selecting antithrombotic therapies, particularly in upgrading patients from antiplatelets to anticoagulants. However, the introduction of novel oral anticoagulants has complicated the decision-making process, and tools must evolve to weigh the risks and benefits of these new therapy options. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2016-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4951074/ /pubmed/27418212 http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160078 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is a publication of the U.S. Government. This publication is in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from this work may be reprinted freely. Use of these materials should be properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Bajorek, Beata V.
Magin, Parker J.
Hilmer, Sarah N.
Krass, Ines
Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013
title Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013
title_full Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013
title_fullStr Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013
title_short Optimizing Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool in Australian General Practice, 2012–2013
title_sort optimizing stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a computerized antithrombotic risk assessment tool in australian general practice, 2012–2013
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4951074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418212
http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160078
work_keys_str_mv AT bajorekbeatav optimizingstrokepreventioninpatientswithatrialfibrillationaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialofacomputerizedantithromboticriskassessmenttoolinaustraliangeneralpractice20122013
AT maginparkerj optimizingstrokepreventioninpatientswithatrialfibrillationaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialofacomputerizedantithromboticriskassessmenttoolinaustraliangeneralpractice20122013
AT hilmersarahn optimizingstrokepreventioninpatientswithatrialfibrillationaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialofacomputerizedantithromboticriskassessmenttoolinaustraliangeneralpractice20122013
AT krassines optimizingstrokepreventioninpatientswithatrialfibrillationaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialofacomputerizedantithromboticriskassessmenttoolinaustraliangeneralpractice20122013