Abstract 3818: Reasons To Withhold Anticoagulation In Atrial Fibrillation Subjects After Ischemic Stroke
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important modifiable and independent risk factor for stroke. AF is associated with 2-4% annual risk for first time stroke and about 8% annually for recurrent stroke. Anticoagulant therapy reduces the risk by 60%, while the relative risk reduction (RRR) obtained from antiplatelet therapy is only 20%. The effect is more robust for secondary than for primary prevention. Risk stratification schemes are utilized to assess an individual’s risk of future stroke and to determine the optimal antithrombotic or anticoagulation regimen for stroke prevention. Despite Warfarin’s superiority over antiplatelet therapy to reduce the risk of AF related systemic embolism, Warfarin is largely underutilized. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and reasons behind withholding anticoagulation in patient with AF related cardioembolic stroke in our institution. Method: We extracted patients from our Get With The Guideline’s (GWTG) database who were admitted to Mayo Clinic AZ between January 2004 and December 2009. Two authors (TK and NL) independently identified all patients with the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation who were not prescribed Warfarin therapy upon discharge, then reviewed to identify the reason(s) why anticoagulation was not initiated. Factors such as discharge disposition (home, acute rehabilitation, long term nursing facility, hospice, other) and functional status (able to ambulate independently, with assistance, unable to ambulate, or not documented) were also assessed to help support the decision process. Results: From a total of 1295 patients, 305 with AF were identified. Patients who expired 48 (3.7%) from un-related causes were excluded. Of the 257 patients, 206 (80.2%) were anticoagulated and 51 (19.8%) were not anticoagulated. We found that in the anticoagulated group, patients discharged home were more likely to receive anticoagulation (89.2%), followed by those discharged to acute rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities (77%). Those discharged to hospice were the least likely to receive anticoagulation (6.4%). In addition, patients with greater functional ability were also more likely to receive anticoagulation (independent 89.8%, vs. assisted 76.7%, vs. non-ambulatory 33.3%; p<0.0001). Reasons to withhold anticoagulation therapy at discharge included terminal illness/comfort measures only (40.0%); risk/discomfort due to bleeding (24%); risk of falls (13.0%); and patient refusal (9.0%). Discussion: Based on the results, we conclude that functional status and disposition at discharge are significant factors influencing the decision to anticoagulate after cardioembolic stroke attributed to AF.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».