The prevalence of long-term oral anticoagulation therapy in a cardiology center in Bucharest, Romania.

Abstract

Background and aims: Few studies discuss the prevalence of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) in clinical practice, despite their increasing use worldwide. In America, studies established that 20% to 80% of the patients with indication benefit from OAT. In Romania, there is no data regarding the utilization of oral anticoagulants. Thus, this study aims to determine the trends of OAT.

Methods: We designed a cross-sectional study of the patients admitted to the Cardiology Department of the "Bagdasar-Arseni" Clinical Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, from the 1st of November 2016 until the 31st of January 2017. We considered OAT indications to be: atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF), pulmonary embolisms (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), intramural or intracavitary thrombi and left ventricle aneurysms. Statistical analysis was performed with EpiInfo.

Results: There were 783 patients admitted, 253 of these having an OAT indication (mean age 73.25 years, 53.75% female). Only 162 patients (64.03%) received it, either Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA) (78 patients, 48.14%), or Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) (84 patients, 51.85%). Reasons for not indicating such therapy included the hemorrhage risk (43.27%), the lack of adherence to the treatment (18.56%), the impossibility of INR monitoring (21.84%), the economic status (10.21%) and others (6.12%). 221 patients had AF (87.35%), 141 (63.8%) receiving OAT, VKA (67 patients, 47.51%), or NOAC (74 patients, 52.48%). 17 patients (6.71%) had a PE and/or DVT. 15 (88.23%) received OAT, AVK (11 patients, 73.33%), or NOAC (4 patients, 26.67%). 15 patients (5.92%) had other OAT indications (excepting AF or PE/DVT), 11 receiving OAT (73.33%), AVK (8 patients, 72.72%), or NOAC (3 patients, 27.27%).

Conclusions: Our study determined that 64.03% of those with indication received OAT. Similar data is reported in the USA, suggesting an underuse of anticoagulants. The risk of hemorrhage, lack of adherence, the impossibility of INR monitoring or the economic status were some of the reasons for not recommending OAT.