Advancing age and bleeding risk are the strongest barriers to anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation

In clinical practice many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high thromboembolic risk fail to receive adequate oral anticoagulation (OAC) [1]. The complex management of anticoagulant therapy [frequent international normalised ratio (INR) monitoring because of narrow therapeutic window, interaction with food and alcohol, concomitant medications and comorbities], the overestimation of bleeding risk and the underestimation of stroke risk, may partially explain physicians' reluctance to prescribe anticoagulation. In the current issue of Age and Ageing, Pugh and Mead [2] report a systematic review on physicians' attitudes concerning anticoagulant treatment among AF patients. Through surveys (questionnaire, clinical vignette and interview) on hypothetical case scenarios, they have identified the barriers to effective anticoagulant prescription, as follows: increasing age, bleeding risk or previous bleeding, fall risk, co-morbidities (e.g. chronic alcoholism or cognitive impairment) and lack of compliance. In particular, advanced age has been reported as the most striking reason for with-holding anticoagulation, while risk of falls and previous bleeding are also disproportionate barriers to warfarin prescription.

The experiences of con sultations on oral anticoagula-tion for AF:the importance of qualitative research incardiovascular sciences

Objectives: Multiple-perspective qualitative designs can aid researchersto develop a more multifaceted account of a phenomenon and as aform of triangulation of data. Two interlinking studies aimed toexplore patients’ and physicians’ experiences of atrial fibrillation (AF)and warfarin.Methods: Audio-recorded semistructured individual interviews wereused. Study 1: Three AF patient subgroups were interviewed (n = 11);accepted, refused, or discontinued warfarin. Study 2: Four physiciansubgroups (n = 16): consultant cardiologists, consultant general physi-cians, general practitioners, and cardiology registrars. Data was ana-lyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis, a qualitativemethodology.Results: Study 1: Three overarching themes comprised patients’ experi-ences: the initial consultation, life after the consultation, and patients’reflections. Patients commented on the reassurance experienced duringthe consultation, but they perceived the decision-making processmostly led by the physician. Lack of education and take-home materi-als during the initial consultation were highlighted. Patients’ uptake ofinformation was influenced by past experiences and knowledge ofstroke and/or bleeding. Study 2: Two overarching themes covered phy-sicians’ experiences: communicating information and challenges withwarfarin prescription for AF. Physicians’ approach to the consultationstyle shifted through a continuum of compliance-adherence-concor-dance during the consultation. Time and the perceived patient trust inthem as the expert led to physicians to adopt a paternalistic approach.Guideline adherence and the need to adopt a multidisciplinaryapproach were pointed out as current challenges.Conclusion: There is a need to target patients’ and physicians’ abilityto communicate with each other in a comprehensible way. This projecthas illustrated the benefit of using a qualitative approach to under-stand the lived experience of the physician–patient consultation.Disclosure of Interest: None declare

Oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation, the patients and physicians experiences of the consultation:a qualitative study

Background: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) reduces stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), however it is still underutilized and sometimes refused by patients. This project was divided in two inter-related studies. Study 1 explored the experiences that influence prescription of OAC by physicians. Study 2 explored the experiences which influence patients' decisions to accept, decline or discontinue OAC. Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted in both studies. In Study 1four sub-groups of physicians (n = 16) experienced with OAC in AF were interviewed: consultant cardiologists, consultant general physicians, general practitioners and cardiology registrars. In Study 2 three sub-groups of patients (n = 11) diagnosed with AF were interviewed; those who accepted, refused, and who discontinued warfarin. Results: Study 1: Two over-arching themes emerged from doctors' experiences: (1) communicating information and (2) challenges with OAC prescription for AF. Physicians still adopt a paternalistic approach to decision-making. They should instead motivate patients to take part in treatment discussions and choices should reflect the patient's needs and concerns. Physician education should focus more on communication skills, individualised care and time-management as these are critical for patient adherence. Continuous OAC education for AF should adopt a multi-disciplinary approach. Further, interpreters should also be educated on medical communication skills. Study 2: Three over-arching themes comprised patients' experiences: (1) the initial consultation, (2) life after the consultation, and (3) patients' reflections. Patient education during the initial consultation was critical in increasing patient's knowledge of OAC. On-going patient education is imperative to maintain adherence. Patients valued physicians' concern for their needs during decision-making. Patients who had experience of stroke were more receptive to education aimed towards stroke risk reduction rather than bleeding risk. Patients' perceptions of warfarin are also influenced by the media. Comment: Qualitative research is crucial in exploring barriers to treatment as it provides an excellent insight into patients' experiences of healthcare. A patient-centred approach should be adopted and incorporated into physicians' education. Education and patient involvement in the decision-making process is essential to promote treatment acceptance and long-term adherence