Allan Victoria, Banerjee Amitava, Shah Anoop Dinesh, Patel Riyaz, Denaxas Spiros, Casas Juan-Pablo, Hemingway Harry
Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research, Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Heart. 2017 Feb;103(3):210-218. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2016-309910. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
To investigate net clinical benefit (NCB) of warfarin in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) across stroke risk and across primary and secondary care.
We conducted a linked electronic health record cohort study of 70 206 individuals with initial record of diagnosis of AF in primary (n=29 568) or secondary care (n=40 638) in England (1998-2010). We defined stroke risk according to the CHADS-VASc score, and followed individuals over a median 2.2 years for 7005 ischaemic strokes (IS) and for 906 haemorrhagic strokes (HS). We calculated incidence rates (IRs) and 95% CIs per 100 person-years (PYs) (IR (95% CI)/100 PY) of IS and HS, with and without use of warfarin, and the NCB (ie, number of IS avoided) per 100 PYs of warfarin use (NCB (95% CI)/100 PY).
Compared with individuals with initial record of diagnosis in secondary care, those in primary care had lower scores of IS risk (CHADS-VASc≤2: 30.8% vs 20.6%), and lower overall incidence of IS (IR (95% CI)/100 PY: 2.3 (2.2 to 2.4) vs 4.3 (4.2 to 4.4), p value=0.00); however among individuals with CHADS-VASc=0, 1 or 2 there were no differences in IS rate between those with initial record of diagnosis in primary care or secondary care (IR (95% CI)/100 PY: 0.2 (0.1 to 0.3) vs 0.3 (0.2 to 0.5), p value=0.16), (IR (95% CI)/100 PY: 0.6 (0.4 to 0.7) vs 0.7 (0.6 to 0.9), p value=0.08) and (IR (95% CI)/100 PY: 1.1 (1.00 to 1.3) vs 1.4 (1.2 to 1.6), p value=0.05), respectively. For CHADS-VASc=0, 1 and 2, IRs of IS with versus without warfarin were (IR (95% CI)/100 PY: 0.4 (0.2 to 0.8) vs 0.2 (0.1 to 0.3), p value=0.16), (IR (95% CI)/100 PY: 0.4 (0.3 to 0.7) vs 0.7 (0.6 to 0.8), p value=0.03) and (IR (95% CI)/100 PY: 0.8 (0.7 to 1.0) vs 1.4 (1.3 to 1.6), p value=0.00), respectively. We found a significant positive NCB of warfarin from CHADS-VASc≥2 in men (NCB (95% CI)/100 PY: 0.5 (0.1 to 0.9)) and from CHADS-VASc≥3 in women (NCB (95% CI)/100 PY: 1.5 (1.1 to 1.9)).
CHADS-VASc accurately stratifies IS risk in individuals with AF across both primary and secondary care. However, the incidence rate of ischaemic stroke at CHADS-VASc=1 are lower than previously reported, which may change the decision to start anticoagulation with warfarin in these individuals.
探讨华法林在不同卒中风险以及初级和二级医疗保健环境下的房颤患者中的净临床获益(NCB)。
我们对70206例在英国(1998 - 2010年)初级医疗(n = 29568)或二级医疗(n = 40638)中首次诊断为房颤的患者进行了一项关联电子健康记录队列研究。我们根据CHADS - VASc评分定义卒中风险,并对患者进行了中位时间为2.2年的随访,记录了7005例缺血性卒中(IS)和906例出血性卒中(HS)。我们计算了使用和未使用华法林时IS和HS每100人年(PYs)的发病率(IRs)及95%置信区间(IR(95%CI)/100 PY),以及每100 PYs华法林使用的NCB(即避免的IS数量,NCB(95%CI)/100 PY)。
与二级医疗中首次诊断记录患者相比,初级医疗中的患者IS风险评分较低(CHADS - VASc≤2:30.8%对20.6%),IS总体发病率较低(IR(95%CI)/100 PY:2.3(2.2至2.4)对4.3(4.2至4.4),p值 = 0.00);然而,在CHADS - VASc = 0、1或2的患者中,初级医疗和二级医疗中首次诊断记录患者的IS发生率无差异(IR(95%CI)/100 PY:0.2(0.1至0.3)对0.3(0.2至0.5),p值 = 0.16),(IR(95%CI)/100 PY:0.6(0.4至0.7)对0.7(0.6至0.9),p值 = 0.08)以及(IR(95%CI)/100 PY:1.1(1.00至1.3)对1.4(1.2至1.6),p值 = 0.05)。对于CHADS - VASc = 0、1和2,使用与未使用华法林时IS的IR分别为(IR(95%CI)/100 PY:0.4(0.