Heart and Lung Institute, University hospital of Lille, F-59000 Lille, France; Univ. Lille, F-59000, France; Institut Pasteur of Lille, Inserm U1011, F-59000 Lille, France; FACT (French Alliance for Cardiovascular Trials), F-75000 Paris, France.
Heart and Lung Institute, University hospital of Lille, F-59000 Lille, France; Institut Pasteur of Lille, Inserm U1167, F-59000 Lille, France; Univ. Lille, F-59000, France.
Int J Cardiol. 2022 Feb 1;348:15-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.11.077. Epub 2021 Dec 3.
If several randomized studies allowed to better apprehend what should be the best antithrombotic strategy in patients with concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF), there are still several clinical situations with a gap of evidence.
We conducted a national French survey in September-October 2020 among cardiologists in order to assess what are daily practices regarding the antithrombotic management in several specific clinical settings where no or little scientific evidence is available. The questionnaires were built by a committee of 6 cardiologists routinely involved in the field of CAD and/or AF.
Among the 6388 French cardiologists, 483 (7.6%) cardiologists participated to the survey. The rate of participation was rather homogeneous across the country. The mean age of participants was 48 +/- 12.7. There were 134 women (27.7%) and 349 men. Altogether, 181 (37.5%) cardiologists worked in private, 153 (31.7%) in non-universitary public and 83 (17.2%) in universitary public centers. The remaining had shared activity. Among the participants, 150 were interventional (coronary) cardiologists (31.1%). Others were general cardiologists (n = 229), specialists in the field of rhythmology (n = 43), heart failure (n = 17) or imaging (n = 44). The survey consisted of 10 questions pertaining to 2 virtual clinical scenarios.
The present survey is an illustration of how therapeutic decisions may vary in such situations with little or no scientific evidence. Such surveys may help experts to build consensus (answers with little variability) and to target the need for future trials and more research (answers with a lot of variability).
尽管有几项随机研究使我们能够更好地了解在同时患有冠状动脉疾病 (CAD) 和心房颤动 (AF) 的患者中,哪种抗栓策略最佳,但仍有一些临床情况缺乏证据。
我们于 2020 年 9 月至 10 月在法国全国范围内对心脏病专家进行了一项调查,以评估在缺乏或几乎没有科学证据的几种特定临床情况下,他们日常的抗栓管理实践。调查问卷由 6 名经常参与 CAD 和/或 AF 领域的心脏病专家委员会制定。
在 6388 名法国心脏病专家中,有 483 名(7.6%)参与了这项调查。全国各地的参与率相当一致。参与者的平均年龄为 48 +/- 12.7 岁。有 134 名女性(27.7%)和 349 名男性。共有 181 名(37.5%)心脏病专家在私人机构工作,153 名(31.7%)在非大学公立机构工作,83 名(17.2%)在大学公立机构工作。其余的人则有共享的活动。在参与者中,有 150 名是介入(冠状动脉)心脏病专家(31.1%)。其他人是普通心脏病专家(n=229)、节律学专家(n=43)、心力衰竭专家(n=17)或影像学专家(n=44)。该调查包括 10 个与 2 个虚拟临床场景相关的问题。
本调查说明了在这种证据不足或几乎没有的情况下,治疗决策可能会有所不同。此类调查可以帮助专家达成共识(答案差异较小),并确定未来试验和更多研究的需求(答案差异较大)。