Current status of the clinical practice and analysis on the ratioanl prescription of antiarrhythmic drugs in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation: Results from the Chinese Atrial Fibrillation Registry (CAFR) trial.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20200103-00004
- VernacularTitle:中国心房颤动患者抗心律失常药物的临床应用情况及处方合理性分析
- Author:
Li Jie SUN
1
;
Xin DU
2
;
Shu Wang LIU
1
;
Rong HE
1
;
Hui ZENG
1
;
Chao SUN
1
;
Lei LI
1
;
Yuan ZHANG
1
;
Chang Sheng MA
2
;
Wei GAO
1
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiology and Institute of Vascular Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Molecular Biology and Regulatory Peptides, Ministry of Health, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cardiovascular Science, Ministry of Education. Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Receptors Research, Beijing 100191, China.
2. Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital of the Capital University of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100029, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Antiarrhythmic drug;
Atrial fibrillation;
Compliance;
Practice pattern
- MeSH:
Aged;
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents/therapeutic use*;
Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy*;
Clinical Trials as Topic;
Humans;
Male;
Practice Patterns, Physicians';
Registries;
Stroke Volume;
Treatment Outcome;
Ventricular Function, Left
- From:
Chinese Journal of Cardiology
2020;48(9):740-747
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To explore the practice patterns and the related factors of oral antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and to evaluate the compliance of AAD application to atrial fibrillation management guidelines. Methods: From August 2011 to August 2016, medical records from 18 014 patients with AF were analyzed based on data from the Chinese Atrial Fibrillation Registry trial. Patients were divided into AAD group (7 788 cases, 43.23%) and non-AAD group (10 226 cases, 56.77%) according to whether AAD was used at baseline or at the time of first use during follow-up. Amiodarone (4 129 cases, 53.02%) and propafenone (3 211 cases, 41.23%) were the mostly prescribed AAD and subgroup analysis was performed accordingly. Medical records were analyzed by random forest regression to evaluate the use of AAD and related factors in patients with AF, and the rationality of AAD was analyzed according to the guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Result: A total of 18 014 patients were included in this study, of which 60.48% (10 895/18 014) were male patients, 22.65% (4 081/18 014) were elderly patients(≥75 years old), there were 7 788 patients (43.23%) in AAD group, and 10 226 patients(56.77%) in non-AAD group. Compared with the non-AAD group, the elderly patients (≥75 years old, 13.74%(1 070/7 788) vs. 29.44%(3 011/10 226)), persistent AF (28.95% (2 250/7 788) 45.80% (4 683/10 226)), heart failure(8.29% (646/7 788) vs. 21.95% (2 245/10 226)), stroke and (or) TIA(12.15% (946/7 788) vs. 19.95% (2 040/10 226)), renal dysfunction(16.36%(1 274/7 788) vs. 29.37% (3 003/10 226)), and high thromboembolism risk(60.17% (4 748/7 788) vs. 76.40% (7 813/10 226)) were less prevalent in the AAD subgroup (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients in tertiary hospitals (OR=3.72, 95%CI 3.17-4.37) were more likely to use AAD, elderly patients (≥75 years old, OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.39-0.55), persistent atrial fibrillation (OR=0.66, 95%CI 0.60-0.72), and patients with heart failure (OR=0.54, 95%CI 0.47-0.63), stroke and (or) TIA (OR=0.77, 95%CI 0.68-0.87), renal dysfunction (OR=0.75, 95%CI 0.59-0.95) and high thromboembolism risk(OR=0.7, 95%CI 0.58-0.84) were more likely not to use AAD(P<0.05). In the AAD group, amiodarone and propafenone were the most commonly used AAD, accounting for 53.02% (4 129/7 788) and 41.23% (3 211/7 788), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (OR=4.57, 95%CI 3.94-5.29) and coronary heart disease (OR=4.14, 95%CI 3.03-5.64), heart failure (OR=2.07, 95%CI 1.48-2.89), non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (OR=4.84, 95%CI 2.41-9.73) were more likely to use amiodarone, and those with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (OR=0.31, 95%CI 0.15-0.65) and low thromboembolism risk (OR=0.78, 95%CI 0.63-0.97) were more likely to use propafenone (P<0.001). The overall incidence of AAD treatment, which was not indicated by the guidelines was 6.5% (480/7 340); 5.1% (212/4 129) in the amiodarone group and 8.3% (268/3 211) in the propafenone group, respectively. Compared with the rational AAD use group, the proportion of irrational drug use was higher in the elderly (≥75 years old) (20.4% (98/480) vs. 12.9% (887/6 860)), patients of high thromboembolism risk (77.1% (379/480) vs. 59.0% (4 047/6 860)), and in non-tertiary hospitals (7.1% (34/480) vs. 3.3% (299/6 860)), but lower in men(50.8% (244/480) vs. 64.5% (4 427/6 860)), P<0.001. Conclusions: The patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, who were treated with AAD, were mostly patients with fewer complications, and the patients who were treated with amiodarone were mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, patients were more likely to complicate with organic heart disease. The incidence of AAD that do not comply with the guidelines was low, and it was more common in non-tertiary hospitals and the elder patients with high thromboembolism risk.
