Clinical pre-test of a computerised antithrombotic risk assessment tool for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients: giving consideration to NOACs
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2016, 22 (6), pp. 892 - 898
- Issue Date:
- 2016-12-01
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang_et_al-2016-Journal_of_Evaluation_in_Clinical_Practice.pdf | Published Version | 489.51 kB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Rationale, aims and objectives: The decision-making around antithrombotics in atrial fibrillation requires comprehensive risk versus benefit assessment. In view of the availability of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) including dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban, a decision support tool designed to assist the selection of antithrombotics has been modified to consider both warfarin and NOACs. This study aims to pre-test this modified decision support tool. Methods: The decision support tool was modified to consider either warfarin or NOACs as first-line therapy and applied to data pertaining to a cohort of 393 patients in New South Wales. Results: Overall, 380 (96.7%) patients were eligible for oral anticoagulants. In the scenario of warfarin being recommended as first-line therapy, the Computerised Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool version 2.0 (caratv2.0) recommended warfarin for 360 (91.6%) patients, any NOAC for 5 (1.3%) patients, either rivaroxaban or apixaban for 6 (1.5%) patients and apixaban for 9 (2.2%) patients. In the scenario of NOACs as first-line therapy, caratv2.0 recommended any NOAC for 279 (70.9%) patients, either rivaroxaban or apixaban for 80 (20.4%) patients, apixaban for 9 (2.3%) patients and warfarin for 12 (3.1%) patients. Key reasons for caratv2.0 to recommend a change from warfarin (patients' current therapy) to NOACs included known warfarin allergy/adverse reaction, a history of intracranial bleeding, and previous gastrointestinal bleeding. Key predictors for caratv2.0 to consider that patients are more suitable for NOACs over warfarin were a diagnosis of other gastrointestinal diseases, more co-morbidities and high risk of falls. Conclusions: According to this decision support tool, both warfarin and NOACs are viable treatment options in majority of the patients, but there is a scope for better rationalization of therapy.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: