Başaran Özcan, Dogan Volkan, Biteker Murat, Karadeniz Fatma Özpamuk, Tekkesin Ahmet İlker, Çakıllı Yasin, Türkkan Ceyhan, Hamidi Mehmet, Demir Vahit, Gürsoy Mustafa Ozan, Öztürk Müjgan Tek, Aksan Gökhan, Seyis Sabri, Ballı Mehmet, Alıcı Mehmet Hayri, Bozyel Serdar, Kırma Cevat
Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Turkey.
Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Turkey.
Eur J Intern Med. 2017 May;40:50-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2017.02.011. Epub 2017 Feb 24.
No studies have been conducted in Turkey to compare the quality of stroke prevention therapies provided in different healthcare settings in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate possible differences between secondary (SH) and tertiary hospital (TH) settings in the effectiveness of implementing AF treatment strategies.
Baseline characteristics of 6273 patients with non-valvular AF enrolled in the RAMSES (ReAl-life Multicentre Survey Evaluating Stroke Prevention Strategies in Turkey) study were compared.
Of the study population, 3312 (52.8%) patients were treated in THs and 2961 (47.2%) patients were treated in SHs. Patients treated in the SH setting were older (70.8±9.8 vs. 68.7±11.4years, p<0.001), had a lower socioeconomic status, had a higher CHADSVASc and HASBLED scores (3.4±1.4 vs. 3.1±1.7, p<0.001 and 1.7±1.0 vs. 1.6±1.1, p<0.001 respectively), and had more comorbidities than patients treated in THs. Inappropriate oral anticoagulant use was more prevalent in SHs than THs (31.4% vs. 25.6%, p<0.001). When over- and undertreatment rates were compared among hospital types, overtreatment was more prevalent in THs (7.6% vs. 0.9%, p<0.001) while undertreatment was more common in SHs (30.5% vs. 17.9%, p<0.001).
This study demonstrates the marked disparity between patient groups with AF presenting at SHs and THs. The use of guideline-recommended therapy is not adequate in either type of centre, overtreatment was more prevalent in THs and undertreatment was more prevalent in SHs.
在土耳其尚未开展研究以比较不同医疗环境下为心房颤动(AF)患者提供的卒中预防治疗的质量。因此,我们旨在评估二级医院(SH)和三级医院(TH)在实施AF治疗策略有效性方面的可能差异。
比较了纳入RAMSES(土耳其评估卒中预防策略的真实生活多中心调查)研究的6273例非瓣膜性AF患者的基线特征。
在研究人群中,3312例(52.8%)患者在三级医院接受治疗,2961例(47.2%)患者在二级医院接受治疗。在二级医院接受治疗的患者年龄更大(70.8±9.8岁 vs. 68.7±11.4岁,p<0.001),社会经济地位较低,CHADSVASc和HASBLED评分更高(分别为3.4±1.4 vs. 3.1±1.7,p<0.001和1.7±1.0 vs. 1.6±1.1,p<0.001),并且比在三级医院接受治疗的患者有更多的合并症。二级医院中口服抗凝药使用不当的情况比三级医院更普遍(31.4% vs. 25.6%,p<0.001)。当比较不同医院类型的过度治疗和治疗不足率时,过度治疗在三级医院更普遍(7.6% vs. 0.9%,p<0.001),而治疗不足在二级医院更常见(30.5% vs. 17.9%,p<0.001)。
本研究表明在二级医院和三级医院就诊的AF患者群体之间存在显著差异。两种类型的中心在使用指南推荐治疗方面均不充分,过度治疗在三级医院更普遍,而治疗不足在二级医院更普遍。