Search

Aims: Literature regarding anticoagulants in older people affected by atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited to retrospective studies, poorly considering the importance of multidimensional frailty. The main objective of this study is to evaluate in hospitalised older persons with AF the benefit/risk ratio of the anticoagulant treatments, considering the severity of frailty, determined by the multidimensional prognostic index (MPI)., Methods: In this European, multicentre, prospective study, older hospitalised patients (≥65 years) with non-valvular AF were followed-up for 12 months. Anticoagulants' use at discharge ascertained using medical records. MPI was calculated using tools derived from comprehensive geriatric assessment, classifying participants in robust, pre-frail or frail. Mortality (primary outcome); vascular events, including ischemic heart disease or ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke or gastrointestinal bleedings (secondary outcomes)., Results: 2,022 participants (mean age 82.9 years; females 56.6%) were included. Compared with people not taking anticoagulants (n = 823), people using vitamin K antagonists (n = 450) showed a decreased risk of mortality (hazard ratio, HR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.93), more pronounced in patients using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 749) (HR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.37-0.57). Only people taking DOACs reported a significantly lower risk of vascular events (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97). The efficacy of DOACs was present independently from frailty status. The risk of gastrointestinal bleedings and hemorrhagic stroke did not differ based on the anticoagulant treatments and by MPI values., Conclusions: Anticoagulant treatment, particularly with DOACs, was associated with reduced mortality in older people, without increasing the risk of hemorrhagic events, overall suggesting the importance of treating with anticoagulants older people with AF., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to deprescribe fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs). Lack of knowledge and skills form a significant barrier and furthermore, there is no consensus on which medications are considered as FRIDs despite several systematic reviews. To support clinicians in the management of FRIDs and to facilitate the deprescribing process, STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk) and a deprescribing tool were developed by a European expert group., Methods: STOPPFall was created by two facilitators based on evidence from recent meta-analyses and national fall prevention guidelines in Europe. Twenty-four panellists chose their level of agreement on a Likert scale with the items in the STOPPFall in three Delphi panel rounds. A threshold of 70% was selected for consensus a priori. The panellists were asked whether some agents are more fall-risk-increasing than others within the same pharmacological class. In an additional questionnaire, panellists were asked in which cases deprescribing of FRIDs should be considered and how it should be performed., Results: The panellists agreed on 14 medication classes to be included in the STOPPFall. They were mostly psychotropic medications. The panellists indicated 18 differences between pharmacological subclasses with regard to fall-risk-increasing properties. Practical deprescribing guidance was developed for STOPPFall medication classes., Conclusion: STOPPFall was created using an expert Delphi consensus process and combined with a practical deprescribing tool designed to optimise medication review. The effectiveness of these tools in falls prevention should be further evaluated in intervention studies., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations., Methods: under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators., Results: the final recommendations include four different domains: 'General Considerations' on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), 'Knowledge in patient care' (36 sub-items), 'Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician' (9 sub-items) and a domain on 'Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process' (1 item)., Conclusion: the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states., (© The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.)