Factors in Initial Anticoagulation Choice in Hospitalized Patients With Pulmonary Embolism.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
William B Stubblefield, Ron Helderman, Natalie Strokes, Colin F Greineder, Geoffrey D Barnes, David R Vinson, Lauren M Westafer
{"title":"Factors in Initial Anticoagulation Choice in Hospitalized Patients With Pulmonary Embolism.","authors":"William B Stubblefield, Ron Helderman, Natalie Strokes, Colin F Greineder, Geoffrey D Barnes, David R Vinson, Lauren M Westafer","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Despite guideline recommendations to use low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) or direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of most patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), US-based studies have found increasing use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in hospitalized patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify barriers and facilitators of guideline-concordant anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with acute PE.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This qualitative study conducted semistructured interviews from February 1 to June 3, 2024, that were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using reflexive thematic analysis. Interview participants were physicians in emergency medicine, hospital medicine (hospitalist), interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology. Participants were recruited using maximum variation sampling targeting UFH-dominant vs LMWH-dominant approaches in hospitalized patients with acute PE. We triangulated results with a group of interventional cardiologists and radiologists (interventionalists).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Common themes and factors associated with anticoagulant selection for hospitalized patients with acute PE. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify these themes and factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 46 interviewees (median [IQR] age, 43 [36-50] years; 33 who identified as men [71.7%]), 25 (54.3%) were emergency physicians, 17 (37.0%) were hospitalists, and 4 (8.7%) were interventionalists. Each interview lasted a median (IQR) of 29 (25-32) minutes. Prominent themes associated with anticoagulant selection included agnosticism regarding choice of anticoagulant, the inertia of learned practice, and therapeutic momentum after anticoagulation initiation. Institutional culture and support were factors associated with choice of the dominant anticoagulation strategy. Additionally, factors associated with UFH use were fear of decompensation and misperceptions regarding the pharmacology of anticoagulants and catheter-directed treatments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this qualitative study, physicians across a spectrum of specialties and geographical settings reported common barriers and facilitators to the use of guideline-concordant anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with acute PE, particularly agnosticism regarding choice of anticoagulant, inertia of learned practice, therapeutic momentum after anticoagulation initiation, and institutional culture and support. Future implementation efforts may consider targeting these domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 1","pages":"e2452877"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52877","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Despite guideline recommendations to use low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) or direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of most patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), US-based studies have found increasing use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in hospitalized patients.

Objective: To identify barriers and facilitators of guideline-concordant anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with acute PE.

Design, setting, and participants: This qualitative study conducted semistructured interviews from February 1 to June 3, 2024, that were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using reflexive thematic analysis. Interview participants were physicians in emergency medicine, hospital medicine (hospitalist), interventional cardiology, and interventional radiology. Participants were recruited using maximum variation sampling targeting UFH-dominant vs LMWH-dominant approaches in hospitalized patients with acute PE. We triangulated results with a group of interventional cardiologists and radiologists (interventionalists).

Main outcomes and measures: Common themes and factors associated with anticoagulant selection for hospitalized patients with acute PE. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify these themes and factors.

Results: Of the 46 interviewees (median [IQR] age, 43 [36-50] years; 33 who identified as men [71.7%]), 25 (54.3%) were emergency physicians, 17 (37.0%) were hospitalists, and 4 (8.7%) were interventionalists. Each interview lasted a median (IQR) of 29 (25-32) minutes. Prominent themes associated with anticoagulant selection included agnosticism regarding choice of anticoagulant, the inertia of learned practice, and therapeutic momentum after anticoagulation initiation. Institutional culture and support were factors associated with choice of the dominant anticoagulation strategy. Additionally, factors associated with UFH use were fear of decompensation and misperceptions regarding the pharmacology of anticoagulants and catheter-directed treatments.

Conclusions and relevance: In this qualitative study, physicians across a spectrum of specialties and geographical settings reported common barriers and facilitators to the use of guideline-concordant anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with acute PE, particularly agnosticism regarding choice of anticoagulant, inertia of learned practice, therapeutic momentum after anticoagulation initiation, and institutional culture and support. Future implementation efforts may consider targeting these domains.

肺栓塞住院患者初始抗凝选择的影响因素。
重要性:尽管指南建议使用低分子肝素(LMWHs)或直接口服抗凝剂治疗大多数急性肺栓塞(PE)患者,但美国的研究发现,住院患者越来越多地使用未分离肝素(UFH)。目的:探讨急性肺心病住院患者符合指南抗凝治疗的障碍和促进因素。设计、环境和参与者:本定性研究从2024年2月1日至6月3日进行了半结构化访谈,并使用反身性主题分析在迭代过程中进行了记录、转录和分析。访谈对象为急诊医学、医院医学(住院医师)、介入心脏病学和介入放射学的医生。在急性PE住院患者中,采用最大变异抽样针对ufh优势vs lmwh优势的方法招募参与者。我们与一组介入性心脏病专家和放射科医生(介入性医生)对结果进行了三角测量。主要结局和措施:急性肺泡栓塞住院患者抗凝选择的共同主题和相关因素。反身性主题分析用于识别这些主题和因素。结果:46名受访者(中位[IQR]年龄43[36-50]岁;男性33例(71.7%),急诊医师25例(54.3%),住院医师17例(37.0%),介入医师4例(8.7%)。每次访谈的中位数(IQR)为29(25-32)分钟。与抗凝剂选择相关的突出主题包括抗凝剂选择的不可知论、习得性实践的惯性以及抗凝剂开始后的治疗势头。机构文化和支持是影响首选抗凝策略选择的因素。此外,与使用UFH相关的因素是对失代偿的恐惧和对抗凝剂药理学和导管指导治疗的误解。结论和相关性:在这项定性研究中,不同专业和地区的医生报告了急性肺心病住院患者使用符合指南的抗凝治疗的常见障碍和促进因素,特别是抗凝剂的选择、学习实践的惯性、抗凝治疗开始后的治疗势头以及机构文化和支持方面的不可知论。未来的实现工作可能会考虑瞄准这些领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信