Treatment patterns in anticoagulant therapy in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in Belgium: results from the GARFIELD-AF registry

Prevalencia y perfil clínico-terapéutico de la fibrilación auricular en consultorios de cardiología privados del noreste de México

“…However, also in 58.7% of the low-risk CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 0-1 patients, OACS were used, without a clear indication. 22 In our study, the percentage of OACS prescription in NVAF was 59%, a percentage close to that obtained in the follow-up cohort 2-year prospective of 17,162 patients, from the GARFIELD-AF registry, which reported 60.8%. 23 However, in the present work the participating cardiologists were not inclined to prescrib OACS to patients with NVAF located in category 0-1 of the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scale, receiving them only 8.33%.…”

Why do not all patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of thromboembolism receive oral anticoagulation?

“…It should be noted that the use of OACs in daily practice has increased in recent years. According to the data from the registry of Ding et al [21], in 2001-2004, OACs were used in only 23% of patients with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VAS score of at least 2 points while in 2012-2016 these drugs were used in as much as 84.3% of such patients in the study performed by Cools et al [22], which is similar to the data from the EORP-AF [23] and PREFER in AF [24] registers. The results presented by Cowan et al [25] and Holt et al [26] are similar and concern a specific time periods, i.e.…”

Impact of different anticoagulation management strategies on outcomes in atrial fibrillation: Dutch and Belgian results from the GARFIELD‐AF registry

“…In 2012, more than 50% of patients with newly diagnosed AF were treated with NOACs in BE, compared to approximately 3% in NL. 1,2 One of the reasons for the lower uptake rate in NL was an advisory report from the Health Council of the Netherlands warranting a careful introduction of NOACs, given the uncertainties of the safety and efficacy of these drugs in a realworld setting, and a lack of systematic monitoring hereon. 3 Also, more experience with anticoagulant management by physicians in BE in comparison to NL could have influenced NOAC uptake rates, as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) care in BE is organized by general physicians (GP), but in NL is organized by specialized anticoagulation clinics.…”

“…In these countries, non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) were approved for AF in 2011 and 2012, respectively. In 2012, more than 50% of patients with newly diagnosed AF were treated with NOACs in BE, compared to approximately 3% in NL 1,2 . One of the reasons for the lower uptake rate in NL was an advisory report from the Health Council of the Netherlands warranting a careful introduction of NOACs, given the uncertainties of the safety and efficacy of these drugs in a real‐world setting, and a lack of systematic monitoring hereon 3 .…”