Guideline Directed Anticoagulant Treatment and Dosing in a Contemporary Atrial Fibrillation Cohort: Analysis of the TRANSECT-AF Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Optimal thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation (AF) requires the accurate application of modern clinical guidelines. We evaluated the point prevalence and factors associated with nonguideline-directed anticoagulation and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing in Canadian patients with AF. Methods: TRANSECT-AF is a retrospective registry of consecutive Canadian patients with AF collected between March 2021 and August 2023. Patients were categorized as guideline directed therapy (GDT) or nonguideline-directed therapy (NGDT) based on concordance of their reported thromboprophylaxis with the CHADS-65 algorithm. Patients on GDT with a DOAC were subcategorized as concordant or discordant dosing based on concordance of their reported DOAC doses with the 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF dosing recommendations. Results: In total, 3043 patients were included (median age 77, 37% women, median CHADS-VASc score 4, median HAS-BLED score 2) and 11% received NGDT, which was independently associated with younger age, lower thromboembolic risk, better renal function, and antiplatelet therapy. Within the GDT cohort, 32% of patients were on guideline discordant DOAC doses. Older age, lower body mass index, female sex, lower renal function, higher thromboembolic risk and non-apixaban DOAC use were independently associated with discordant dosing. Conclusions: Within this Canadian AF registry, 11% of patients were on NGDT and 32% of patients on GDT with a DOAC were treated with a guideline-discordant dose. Our analysis describes predictors of guideline discordant anticoagulation and DOAC dosing that may be used to identify target populations for future quality improvement initiatives in AF thromboprophylaxis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".