Impact of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool on the Prescription of Thromboprophylaxis in Atrial Fibrillation: Hospital Setting.

The computerized antithrombotic risk assessment tool (CARAT) is an online decision-support algorithm that facilitates a systematic review of a patient's stroke risk, bleeding risk, and pertinent medication safety considerations, to generate an individualized treatment recommendation. The CARAT was prospectively applied across 2 hospitals in the greater Sydney area. Its impact on antithrombotics utilization for thromboprophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation was evaluated. Factors influencing prescribers' treatment selection were identified. The CARAT recommended a change in baseline therapy for 51.8% of patients. Among anticoagulant-eligible patients (ie, where the risk of stroke outweighed the risk of bleeding) using "nil therapy" or antiplatelet therapy at baseline, the CARAT recommended an upgrade to warfarin in 60 (30.8%) patients. For those in whom the bleeding risk outweighed the stroke risk, the CARAT recommended a downgrade from warfarin to safer alternatives (eg, aspirin) in 37 (19%) patients. Among the "most eligible" (ie, high stroke risk, low bleeding risk, no contraindications; n = 75), the CARAT recommended warfarin for all cases. Discharge therapy observed a marginal increase in anticoagulation prescription in eligible patients (n = 116; 57.8% vs 64.7%, P = .35) compared to baseline. Predictors of warfarin use (vs antiplatelets) included congestive cardiac failure, diabetes mellitus, and polypharmacy. The CARAT was able to optimize the selection of therapy, increasing anticoagulant use among eligible patients. With the increasing complexity of decision-making, such tools may be useful adjuncts in therapy selection in atrial fibrillation. Future studies should explore the utility of such tools in selecting therapies from within an expanded treatment armamentarium comprising the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.

Assessment of Web-based education resources informing patients about stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The importance of 'shared decision-making' is much emphasized in recent clinical guidelines regarding stroke management in atrial fibrillation (AF), more so following the inclusion of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) among the treatment options. It is important that patients are navigated through balanced and unbiased information about the available treatment options, so as to understand the risk and benefits associated with the therapies, and to enable them to accordingly communicate their concerns and views with their clinicians prior to therapy selection. Given the increasing popularity of the Internet as a source of health information, the specific objectives of this study were to identify what aspects of thromboprophylaxis (antithrombotic treatment options) were most commonly described in these resources, both in terms of content, that is to report the information provided (quantitative) and the underlying themes underpinning this content, and in terms of how this information might guide patient preferences (qualitative). METHOD: Resources for patients were identified via online search engines (Google, Yahoo, Ask, Bing), using the terms 'atrial fibrillation' and 'stroke' combined with patient/consumer information, patient/consumer resources and patient/consumer education. The researchers employed pragmatic (mix-method) approach to analyse the information presented within the resources using manual inductive coding, at two levels of analysis: manifest (reported surface theme or codes that are obvious and are countable) and latent (thematic, interpretative presentation of the content in the data set). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In total, 33 resources were reviewed. The 'manifest-level' analysis found that warfarin was the most frequently mentioned thromboprophylactic option among the anticoagulants, being cited in all resources, followed by the NOACs - dabigatran (82·3% of resources), rivaroxaban (73·5%) and apixaban (67·6%). Only one-third of resources discussed the role of stroke risk and/or bleeding risk within the decision-making. At the 'latent-level' analysis, three overarching themes emerged: (i) The practical ease of managing NOACs over warfarin; (ii) Unbalanced explanation about stroke risk versus bleeding risk; and (iii) Individualized antithrombotic therapy selection. In general, the benefit of stroke prevention with anticoagulant use was emphasized less compared to the risk of bleeding. Overall, one in four resources had an implied preference for either warfarin or the NOACs. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The implied inclination of some resources towards particular anticoagulant therapies and imbalanced information about the importance of anticoagulation in AF might misinform and confuse patients. Patients' engagement in shared decision-making and adherence to medicines may be undermined by the suboptimal quality of information provided in the resources. Health professionals have an important role to play in referring patients to appropriate resources to enable patient engagement in shared decision-making when selecting treatment.