We have located links that may give you full text access.
The Translation of Knowledge Into Practice in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Singapore.
Heart, Lung & Circulation 2019 April
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a clinically significant cardiac arrhythmia known to increase the risk of stroke by at least four times. Stroke-risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis are vital components in AF management. Guidelines are available to standardise AF management, but physicians' adherence to the recommended guidelines has been low. The aims were to: 1. Examine and compare the level of knowledge and current practice in AF management between cardiologists and non-cardiologist physicians in Singapore; 2. Identify physicians' perceived barriers to prescribing oral anticoagulants (OACs) when indicated; 3. Identify strategies to optimise AF management.
METHODS: From June 2017 to August 2017, a cross-sectional online survey involving physicians was conducted in Singapore. The survey instrument was adapted from a previously developed instrument, and validated locally by five cardiologists. It explored the physicians' stroke-risk assessment practices, estimation of stroke risk and benefits of anticoagulation, likelihood of prescribing anticoagulation when indicated, perceived barriers to anticoagulation, and strategies to optimise AF management.
RESULTS: Sixty-three (63) physicians completed the survey (14 cardiologists and 49 non-cardiologist physicians). No significant difference was found between cardiologists and non-cardiologist physicians in their assessment and estimation of stroke risk for stable AF patients. However, when presented with an AF patient with stroke risk, cardiologists were more likely than non-cardiologist physicians to prescribe novel OACs (93% vs. 51%; χ2 =7.933, p=0.004). Compared to cardiologists, the majority of the non-cardiologist physicians thought the risk of falls were usually or always barriers to prescribing OACs (29% vs 69%; χ2 =7.579, p=0.006). Among the suggested strategies to support them in AF management, physicians have overwhelmingly rated two as "quite useful" and "very useful": the establishment of clinics for monitoring anticoagulated patients (100%); and involvement of pharmacists in managing patients on warfarin (98.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians possess good knowledge about stroke-risk assessment in AF patients yet it is not translated into effective measures for stroke prevention. Physicians, especially non-cardiologist ones, were not anticoagulating AF patients when indicated. Although novel OACs are safer alternatives to warfarin, non-cardiologist physicians were less inclined to use them for stroke prevention. All physicians opined that establishing anticoagulation clinics and collaborating with pharmacists were useful strategies to optimise AF management. Existing barriers to anticoagulation impeded the translation of knowledge into practice in the management of AF patients in Singapore, for which optimal strategies to optimise AF management are ascertained.
METHODS: From June 2017 to August 2017, a cross-sectional online survey involving physicians was conducted in Singapore. The survey instrument was adapted from a previously developed instrument, and validated locally by five cardiologists. It explored the physicians' stroke-risk assessment practices, estimation of stroke risk and benefits of anticoagulation, likelihood of prescribing anticoagulation when indicated, perceived barriers to anticoagulation, and strategies to optimise AF management.
RESULTS: Sixty-three (63) physicians completed the survey (14 cardiologists and 49 non-cardiologist physicians). No significant difference was found between cardiologists and non-cardiologist physicians in their assessment and estimation of stroke risk for stable AF patients. However, when presented with an AF patient with stroke risk, cardiologists were more likely than non-cardiologist physicians to prescribe novel OACs (93% vs. 51%; χ2 =7.933, p=0.004). Compared to cardiologists, the majority of the non-cardiologist physicians thought the risk of falls were usually or always barriers to prescribing OACs (29% vs 69%; χ2 =7.579, p=0.006). Among the suggested strategies to support them in AF management, physicians have overwhelmingly rated two as "quite useful" and "very useful": the establishment of clinics for monitoring anticoagulated patients (100%); and involvement of pharmacists in managing patients on warfarin (98.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians possess good knowledge about stroke-risk assessment in AF patients yet it is not translated into effective measures for stroke prevention. Physicians, especially non-cardiologist ones, were not anticoagulating AF patients when indicated. Although novel OACs are safer alternatives to warfarin, non-cardiologist physicians were less inclined to use them for stroke prevention. All physicians opined that establishing anticoagulation clinics and collaborating with pharmacists were useful strategies to optimise AF management. Existing barriers to anticoagulation impeded the translation of knowledge into practice in the management of AF patients in Singapore, for which optimal strategies to optimise AF management are ascertained.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
2024 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2024 March 3
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app