Back

Frailty in older patients with atrial fibrillation and its relationship with anticoagulant use: a multi-centred observational study in New South Wales

Nguyen, T. N.; Fujita, K.; Hilmer, S. N.

2024-12-21 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2024.12.20.24319406 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background and aimsEvidence of the impact of frailty on oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription in older people with atrial fibrillation (AF) is conflicting. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of frailty in hospitalised older patients with AF and its relationship with OAC prescription during admission. The secondary aim was to examine the association between frailty and rate/rhythm control medication prescriptions. MethodsThis retrospective observational study included adults aged [&ge;]65 with AF admitted to six hospitals in Australia in 2022. Frailty was defined by a Frailty Index [&ge;]0.25. Logistic regression models were applied to examine the association between frailty and the prescriptions of OAC, rate-control and rhythm-control drugs during hospitalisation. Results are presented as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsThere were 685 patients, with a mean age of 82.6(SD 8.3), 49.8% female and 42.8% identified as frail. Overall, 75.6% were prescribed OAC (67.9% in the frail versus 81.4% in the non-frail, p<0.001), 37.7% received rate-control drugs (42.0% in the frail versus 34.4% in the non-frail, p=0.044), 27.3% received rhythm-control drugs (22.9% in the frail versus 30.6% in the non-frail, p=0.024). The adjusted odds ratios of frailty on prescriptions were 0.58 (95% CI 0.39-0.86) for OAC, 1.75 (95%CI 1.22-2.52) for rate-control drugs, and 0.83 (95%CI 0.55-1.24) for rhythm-control drugs. ConclusionsThe study revealed a high prevalence of frailty in older inpatients with AF. Frailty was associated with reduced likelihood of prescription of OAC during admission and increased likelihood of prescribing rate-control medications, with no independent impact on rhythm-control therapy. Further studies are needed to understand these prescribing patterns.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.4%
2
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.4%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 24%
7.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.3%
6
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.8%
7
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 51%
2.1%
9
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
10
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
11
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
13
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
14
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
16
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
18
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
22
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%