Emergency Department capacity to initiate thromboprophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation and thrombotic risk after discharge: URGFAICS cohort analysis.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent heart rhythm disorder in the general population. Stroke prevention is one of the leading management objectives in the treatment of AF patients. The variables associated with the non-initiation of thromboprophylaxis in patients with thrombotic risk consulting for an episode of AF in Emergency Departments (ED) were investigated. This was a multipurpose, analytical, non-interventionist, multicenter Spanish study with a prospective 30-day follow-up. All patients ≥ 18 years of age consulting to the ED for the casual finding of AF in an electrocardiogram (ECG) performed 12 h prior to the consultation or with symptoms related to AF were enrolled from September 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017. Patients not previously received thromboprophylaxis were selected. Multivariate analysis was performed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 634 patients, not received thromboprophylaxis and at high thrombotic risk, were included. Of these, 251 (39.6%) did not receive thromboprophylaxis at ED discharge. In the multivariate analysis, non-initiation of anticoagulation at discharge from the ED was mostly related to cognitive impairment (OR 3.95; (95% CI 2.02-7.72), cancer history (OR 2.12; (95%CI 1.18-3.81), AF duration < 48 h (OR 2.49; (95% CI 1.48-4.21) and patients with re-establishment of sinus rhythm (OR 3.65; (95% CI 1.47-9.06). Reinforcement of the use of CHA2DS2-VASC as a stroke risk scale and empowerment of ED physicians is a must to improve this gap in care.

Impact of emergency department management of atrial fibrillation with amiodarone on length of stay. A propensity score analysis based on the URGFAICS registry.

OBJECTIVE: Amiodarone is a widely used drug in the emergency department (ED) for control of atrial fibrillation, but it has a delayed onset of action and slow metabolism, leading to longer length of ED stay. The aim of this study was to compare the length of ED stay of atrial fibrillation patients who were treated with or without amiodarone. METHODS: We undertook a multicenter, observational, cohort study of the URGFAICS registry of older adults with atrial fibrillation who presented to five Spanish EDs and compared patients who had received amiodarone with those who had not. Afterward, we performed a propensity score matched analysis of atrial fibrillation to determine the ED length of stay related to amiodarone. RESULTS: Of the 1199 patients included in the registry, 225 patients (18.8%) were treated with amiodarone while 974 (81.2%) were not. We performed a univariate study depending on amiodarone administration followed by propensity score calculation according to the 14 statistically different features found previously and six significant variables, obtaining 150 patients (75 for each group) suitable for the analysis. The length of ED stay was analyzed using box plot, with a P <0.001 in the crude analysis and P = 0.012 after propensity score matching and using survival curves for the analysis of prolonged ED stay, with a log rank <0.001 in the crude analysis and log rank 0.021 after the propensity score-matched analysis. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone is associated with longer length of ED stay until discharge independently of the baseline characteristics of the patients.