Identifying secondary stroke prevention treatment gaps in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Kevin Le, Amber Mercuro, Maureen Brady, Ashley Child, Jaclynne Gowen
{"title":"Identifying secondary stroke prevention treatment gaps in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation","authors":"Kevin Le,&nbsp;Amber Mercuro,&nbsp;Maureen Brady,&nbsp;Ashley Child,&nbsp;Jaclynne Gowen","doi":"10.1016/j.japhpi.2025.100035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Current guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC). The risk of stroke is particularly increased in older patients and those with a history of stroke. Previous studies suggested up to 67% of eligible patients with NVAF are not prescribed OAC.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to identify gaps in OAC prescribing patterns for older patients with NVAF and previous stroke to allow for optimization of OAC prescribing.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted from a multispecialty group practice affiliated with a 178-bed community hospital. The sites are located in the Seacoast region of New Hampshire and Southern Maine. Participants included older adults aged 65-89 years with NVAF and previous stroke who were not prescribed OAC with at least1 ambulatory encounter between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023. Pharmacists identified patients using existing databases of ICD-10 codes, medication lists, and ambulatory clinic encounters. The primary outcome was to identify the cohort of patients not prescribed OAC.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 391 eligible patients, 48 (12.3%) were not prescribed OAC therapy. Of the 48 elderly patients with NVAF and stroke history without OAC, 21 (43.5%) did not have a guideline-directed indication for OAC omission. Rationale for OAC omission included cost (6.3%), patient refusal (29.2%), bleeding from isolated trauma or procedural complication (4.2%), falls (18.8%), previous intracranial or intraspinal hemorrhage (8.3%), severe bleeding owing to nonreversible cause (4.2%), and transient NVAF (25%). Patients with Medicare were more likely to lack OAC (60%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Not all patients who were indicated for OAC were prescribed OAC highlighting opportunity to improve prescribing practices. Uncovering real-world rationales for OAC omission equips pharmacists with valuable insights to address patient concerns effectively and highlights the critical role of pharmacist-led patient education in improving prescribing practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100737,"journal":{"name":"JAPhA Practice Innovations","volume":"2 3","pages":"Article 100035"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAPhA Practice Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949969025000107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Current guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC). The risk of stroke is particularly increased in older patients and those with a history of stroke. Previous studies suggested up to 67% of eligible patients with NVAF are not prescribed OAC.

Objective

This study aimed to identify gaps in OAC prescribing patterns for older patients with NVAF and previous stroke to allow for optimization of OAC prescribing.

Methods

This single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted from a multispecialty group practice affiliated with a 178-bed community hospital. The sites are located in the Seacoast region of New Hampshire and Southern Maine. Participants included older adults aged 65-89 years with NVAF and previous stroke who were not prescribed OAC with at least1 ambulatory encounter between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023. Pharmacists identified patients using existing databases of ICD-10 codes, medication lists, and ambulatory clinic encounters. The primary outcome was to identify the cohort of patients not prescribed OAC.

Results

Among 391 eligible patients, 48 (12.3%) were not prescribed OAC therapy. Of the 48 elderly patients with NVAF and stroke history without OAC, 21 (43.5%) did not have a guideline-directed indication for OAC omission. Rationale for OAC omission included cost (6.3%), patient refusal (29.2%), bleeding from isolated trauma or procedural complication (4.2%), falls (18.8%), previous intracranial or intraspinal hemorrhage (8.3%), severe bleeding owing to nonreversible cause (4.2%), and transient NVAF (25%). Patients with Medicare were more likely to lack OAC (60%).

Conclusion

Not all patients who were indicated for OAC were prescribed OAC highlighting opportunity to improve prescribing practices. Uncovering real-world rationales for OAC omission equips pharmacists with valuable insights to address patient concerns effectively and highlights the critical role of pharmacist-led patient education in improving prescribing practices.
识别老年非瓣膜性房颤患者的二级卒中预防治疗缺口
背景:目前非瓣膜性房颤(NVAF)患者卒中预防指南推荐口服抗凝剂(OAC)。老年患者和有中风史的患者患中风的风险尤其增加。先前的研究表明,高达67%的符合条件的非瓣膜性房颤患者未开OAC。目的本研究旨在确定老年非瓣瓣性房颤和既往卒中患者OAC处方模式的差异,以便优化OAC处方。方法本单中心回顾性队列研究来自一家拥有178个床位的社区医院的多专科小组实践。这些地点位于新罕布什尔州和缅因州南部的沿海地区。参与者包括65-89岁的非瓣膜性房颤和既往卒中患者,他们在2022年7月1日至2023年6月30日期间至少有1次门诊就诊,未开OAC处方。药剂师使用现有的ICD-10代码、药物清单和门诊就诊数据库确定患者。主要结局是确定未开OAC处方的患者队列。结果在391例符合条件的患者中,48例(12.3%)未使用OAC治疗。在48例无OAC的老年非瓣膜性房颤和卒中史患者中,21例(43.5%)没有OAC遗漏的指向性指征。遗漏OAC的原因包括:费用(6.3%)、患者拒绝(29.2%)、孤立性创伤或手术并发症出血(4.2%)、跌倒(18.8%)、既往颅内或椎管内出血(8.3%)、不可逆转原因导致的严重出血(4.2%)和短暂性非瓣瓣性房事后出血(25%)。有医疗保险的患者更可能缺乏OAC(60%)。结论并非所有适用OAC的患者都开了OAC,这突出了改进处方实践的机会。揭示OAC遗漏的现实原因为药剂师提供了有价值的见解,以有效解决患者的关切,并突出了药剂师主导的患者教育在改善处方实践中的关键作用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信