4.6 Article

Impact of Rural Residence on Warfarin Use and Clinical Events in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Canadian Population Based Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140607

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alberta Innovates: Health Solutions
  2. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose We studied whether anticoagulant use and outcomes differed between rural versus urban Canadian non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients prior to the introduction of direct oral anticoagulant drugs. Methods Retrospective cohort study of 25,284 adult Albertans with NVAF between April 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008. Results Compared to urban patients, rural patients were older (p = 0.0009) and had more comorbidities but lower bleeding risk at baseline. In the first year after NVAF diagnosis, urban patients were less likely to be hospitalized (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.89) or have an emergency department visit for any reason (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66) but warfarin dispensation rates (72.2% vs 71.8% at 365 days, p = 0.98) and clinical outcomes were similar: 7.8% died in both groups, 3.2% rural vs. 2.8% urban had a stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) (aOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77-1.11), and 6.6% vs. 5.7% (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.06) had a bleed. Baseline SSE risk did not impact warfarin dispensation (73.0% in those with high vs. 72.8% in those with low CHADS(2) score, p = 0.85) but patients at higher baseline bleeding risk were less likely to be using warfarin (69.2% high vs. 73.6% low HASBLED score, p<0.0001) in the first 365 days after diagnosis. In warfarin users, bleeding was more frequent (7.5% vs 6.2%, aHR 1.51 [95% CI 1.33-1.72]) but death or SSE was less frequent (7.0% vs 18.1%, aHR 0.60 [0.54-0.66]). Conclusion Warfarin use and clinical event rates did not differ between rural and urban NVAF patients in a universal access publically-funded healthcare system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据