4.7 Article

Impact of advanced age on management and prognosis in atrial fibrillation: insights from a population-based study in general practice

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 874-878

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afv071

关键词

atrial fibrillation; antithrombotic therapy; age; stroke; general practice; older people

资金

  1. Bayer Healthcare
  2. Boehringer Ingelheim

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Design: retrospective, observational cohort study; 12-month follow-up period. Setting: eleven general practices serving the town of Darlington, England representing a population of 105,000 patients. Patients: two thousand two hundred and fifty-nine patients with a history of AF, 561 (24.8%) aged a parts per thousand yen85 years. Main outcome measures: use of antithrombotic therapy by age group and predictors of stroke and death. Results: five hundred and sixty-one (24.8%) AF patients aged a parts per thousand yen85 years (mean (SD) age 89 (4) years; 66% female) identified with a mean CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score of 4.6 (SD 1.4). Thirty-six per cent received oral anticoagulation (OAC) compared with 57% in the 75-84 years age group. Forty-nine per cent of the very elderly received antiplatelet (AP) monotherapy; recorded OAC contraindications and declines were greatest among those aged a parts per thousand yen85 years. Stroke risk was highest among the very elderly (5.2% per annum), despite anticoagulation (3.9%). Multivariate analyses demonstrated an increased risk of stroke with AP monotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 2.45, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.05-5.70) and a significant reduction in all-cause mortality with OAC therapy (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.99). Conclusion: the majority of very elderly AF patients in general practice do not receive OAC despite their higher stroke risk; almost half received AP monotherapy. AP use independently increased the risk of stroke, signifying that effective stroke prevention requires OAC regardless of age, except where true contraindications exist.

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

4.7
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