Suboptimal use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants: Results from the RAMSES study

WOS: 000384041400052PubMed ID: 27583892This study aimed to investigate the potential misuse of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and the physicians' adherence to current European guideline recommendations in real-world using a large dataset from Real-life Multicenter Survey Evaluating Stroke Prevention Strategies in Turkey (RAMSES Study).RAMSES study is a prospective, multicenter, nationwide registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02344901). In this subgroup analysis of RAMSES study, patients who were on NOACs were classified as appropriately treated (AT), undertreated (UT), and overtreated (OT) according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. The independent predictors of UT and OT were determined by multivariate logistic regression.Of the 2086 eligible patients, 1247 (59.8%) received adequate treatment. However, off-label use was detected in 839 (40.2%) patients; 634 (30.4%) patients received UT and 205 (9.8%) received OT. Independent predictors of UT included >65 years of age, creatinine clearance 50mL/min, urban living, existing dabigatran treatment, and HAS-BLED score of <3, whereas that of OT were creatinine clearance <50mL/min, ongoing rivaroxaban treatment, and HAS-BLED score of 3.The suboptimal use of NOACs is common because of physicians' poor compliance to the guideline recommendations in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Older patients who were on dabigatran treatment with good renal functions and low risk of bleeding were at risk of UT, whereas patients who were on rivaroxaban treatment with renal impairment and high risk of bleeding were at risk of OT. Therefore, a greater emphasis should be given to prescribe the recommended dose for the specified patients

Guideline-adherent therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in different health care settings: Results from ramses study

Objective No studies have been conducted in Turkey to compare the quality of stroke prevention therapies provided in different healthcare settings in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate possible differences between secondary (SH) and tertiary hospital (TH) settings in the effectiveness of implementing AF treatment strategies. Methods Baseline characteristics of 6273 patients with non-valvular AF enrolled in the RAMSES (ReAl-life Multicentre Survey Evaluating Stroke Prevention Strategies in Turkey) study were compared. Results Of the study population, 3312 (52.8%) patients were treated in THs and 2961 (47.2%) patients were treated in SHs. Patients treated in the SH setting were older (70.8 ± 9.8 vs. 68.7 ± 11.4 years, p &lt; 0.001), had a lower socioeconomic status, had a higher CHA2DS2VASc and HASBLED scores (3.4 ± 1.4 vs. 3.1 ± 1.7, p &lt; 0.001 and 1.7 ± 1.0 vs. 1.6 ± 1.1, p &lt; 0.001 respectively), and had more comorbidities than patients treated in THs. Inappropriate oral anticoagulant use was more prevalent in SHs than THs (31.4% vs. 25.6%, p &lt; 0.001). When over- and undertreatment rates were compared among hospital types, overtreatment was more prevalent in THs (7.6% vs. 0.9%, p &lt; 0.001) while undertreatment was more common in SHs (30.5% vs. 17.9%, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion This study demonstrates the marked disparity between patient groups with AF presenting at SHs and THs. The use of guideline-recommended therapy is not adequate in either type of centre, overtreatment was more prevalent in THs and undertreatment was more prevalent in SHs