4.5 Article

Polypharmacy and major adverse events in atrial fibrillation: observations from the AFFIRM trial

期刊

CLINICAL RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY
卷 105, 期 5, 页码 412-420

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-015-0936-y

关键词

Polypharmacy; Atrial fibrillation; Cardiovascular death

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polypharmacy, as the use of five or more drugs, has commonly been associated with the elderly and multiple co-morbidities and related to impairment of clinical state and adverse outcomes, in general population. Limited data are available on the relationship between polypharmacy and adverse outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF). We describe the prevalence of polypharmacy and AF, and its association with major adverse events, such as stroke and cardiovascular (CV) death. For this study, we analysed all AFFIRM Trial patients with complete pharmacological data. Polypharmacy was recorded in 40 % of 4056 AF patients. The crude incidence of CV death was 3.45 % patient-years among patients with polypharmacy, vs 1.65 % patient-years without polypharmacy. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients with polypharmacy had a higher cumulative incidence of CV death (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that female gender (p = 0.038), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.029), previous myocardial infarction (MI) (p = 0.004), prior stroke (p = 0.011) and polypharmacy (p = 0.029) were independently associated with CV death. Polypharmacy was associated with an adjusted relative risk of 1.30 (95 % CI 1.03-1.64) for CV death. A linear increase in the number of drugs was significantly associated with CV death. No significant association was found with stroke occurrence. Polypharmacy is highly prevalent in AF patients and associated with a worse clinical outcome, conferring 30 % excess relative risk for CV death. Thus, polypharmacy may be a health status marker. Strategies to reduce inappropriate prescription and polypharmacy should be tested in prospective longitudinal studies of AF patients.

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

4.5
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