Search

Introduction:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia affecting 1-2% of the population. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) reduces stroke risk by 60-80% in AF patients, but only 50% of indicated patients receive OAC. Many patients present to the ED with AF due to arrhythmia symptoms, however; lack of OAC prescription in the ED has been identified as a significant gap in the care of AF patients. Methods:This was a multi-center, pragmatic, three-phase before-after study, in three Canadian sites. Patients who presented to the ED with electrocardiographically (ECG) documented, nonvalvular AF and were discharged home were included. Phase 1 was a retrospective chart review to determine OAC prescription of AF patients in each ED; Phase 2 was a low-intensity knowledge translation intervention where a simple OAC-prescription tool for ED physicians with subsequent short-term OAC prescription was used, as well as an AF patient education package and a letter to family physicians; phase 3 incorporated Phase 2 interventions, but added immediate follow-up in a community AF clinic. The primaryoutcome of the study was the rate of new OAC prescriptions at ED discharge in AF patients who were OAC eligible and were not on OAC at presentation. Results:A total of 632 patients were included from June, 2015-November, 2016. ED census ranged from 30000-68000 annual visits. Mean age was 71±15, 67±12, 67±13 years, respectively. 47.5% were women, most responsible ED diagnosis was AF in 75.8%. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.6±1.8, with no difference amongst groups. There were 266 patients eligible for OAC and were not on this at presentation. In this group, the prescription of new OAC was 15.8% in Phase 1 as compared to 54% and 47%, in Phases 2 and 3, respectively. After adjustment for center, components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, prior risk of bleeding and most responsible ED diagnosis, the odds ratio for new OAC prescription was 8.0 (95%CI (3.5,18.3) p<0.001) for Phase 3 vs 1, and 10.0 (95%CI (4.4,22.9) p<0.001), for Phase 2 vs 1). No difference in OAC prescription was seen between Phases 2 and 3. Conclusion:Use of a simple OAC-prescription tool was associated with an increase in new OAC prescription in the ED for eligible patients with AF. Further testing in a rigorous study design to assess the effect of this practice on stroke prevention in the AF patients who present to the ED is indicated.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the 2004 extension of the CONSORT guidelines on the reporting and methodological quality of cluster randomised trials. Design Methodological review of 300 randomly sampled cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers independently abstracted 14 criteria related to quality of reporting and four methodological criteria specific to cluster randomised trials. We compared manuscripts published before CONSORT (2000-4) with those published after CONSORT (2005-8). We also investigated differences by journal impact factor, type of journal, and trial setting. DATA SOURCES: A validated Medline search strategy. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Cluster randomised trials published in English language journals, 2000-8. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in five of 14 reporting criteria: identification as cluster randomised; justification for cluster randomisation; reporting whether outcome assessments were blind; reporting the number of clusters randomised; and reporting the number of clusters lost to follow-up. No significant improvements were found in adherence to methodological criteria. Trials conducted in clinical rather than non-clinical settings and studies published in medical journals with higher impact factor or general medical journals were more likely to adhere to recommended reporting and methodological criteria overall, but there was no evidence that improvements after publication of the CONSORT extension for cluster trials were more likely in trials conducted in clinical settings nor in trials published in either general medical journals or in higher impact factor journals. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of cluster randomised trials improved in only a few aspects since the publication of the extension of CONSORT for cluster randomised trials, and no improvements at all were observed in essential methodological features. Overall, the adherence to reporting and methodological guidelines for cluster randomised trials remains suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both reporting and methodology.