Evolution of Antithrombotic Management of Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Over 10 Years and Guidelines Uptake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The management of atrial fibrillation and/or flutter (AF) patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved significantly. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF guidelines, last updated in 2020, seek to aid physicians in balancing both bleeding and thrombotic risks. Methods A tertiary academic centre registry of patients with AF who had PCI was examined for the antithrombotic therapy at discharge in 4 time periods (cohort 2010–2011; cohort 2014–2015; cohort 2017; cohort 2019). Discharge prescription patterns were compared among the cohorts, using the χ 2 test. In addition, antithrombotic management in cohorts 2017 and 2019 were compared to guideline-expected therapy, using the χ 2 test. Results A total of 576 AF patients undergoing PCI were included. Clinical and procedural characteristics were similar among cohorts, except for an increase in drug-eluting stent use in the most recent cohort (94% vs 99%; P = 0.04). The rate of oral anticoagulation increased over time (75% vs 89%; P < 0.01), driven primarily by an increase in direct oral anticoagulants prescription (63% vs 84%; P < 0.01). In contrast to previous cohorts, there was no significant difference between the observed and the guideline-expected anticoagulation rate in cohort 2019 (89% vs 94%; P = 0.23). Conclusions A combination of expert guidance and educational initiatives in the past decade contributed to dramatic changes in the management of patients with AF undergoing PCI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".