Canada-wide mixed methods analysis evaluating the reasons for inappropriate emergency department presentation in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation: the multicentre AF-ED trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to ascertain the reasons for emergency department (ED) attendance among patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: Appropriate ED attendance was defined by the requirement for an electrical or chemical cardioversion and/or an attendance resulting in hospitalisation or administration of intravenous medications for ventricular rate control. Quantitative and qualitative responses were recorded and analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis, respectively. Random effects logistic regression was performed to estimate the OR of inappropriate ED attendance based on clinically relevant patient characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: Participants ≥18 years with a documented history of AF were approached in one of eight centres partaking in the study across Canada (Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia). RESULTS: Of the 356 patients enrolled (67±13, 45% female), the majority (271/356, 76%) had inappropriate reasons for presentation and did not require urgent ED treatment. Approximately 50% of patients(172/356, 48%) were driven to the ED due to symptoms, while the remainder presented on the basis of general fear or anxiety (67/356, 19%) or prior medical advice (117/356, 33%). Random effects logistic regression analysis showed that patients with a history of congestive heart failure were significantly more likely to seek urgent care for appropriate reasons (p=0.03). Likewise, symptom-related concerns for ED presentation were significantly less likely to result in inappropriate visitation (p=0.02). When patients were surveyed on alternatives to ED care, the highest proportion of responses among both groups was in favour of specialised rapid assessment outpatient clinics (186/356, 52%). Qualitative content analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Improved education focused on symptom management and alleviating disease-related anxiety as well as the institution of rapid access arrhythmias clinics may reduce the need for unnecessary healthcare utilisation in the ED and subsequent hospitalisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03127085.

Increased uptake of guideline-recommended oral antiplatelet therapy: insights from the Canadian acute coronary syndrome reflective.

Current guideline-based recommendations for oral dual-antiplatelet therapy in an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) include the use of newer adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor (ADPri) regimens and agents. The Canadian ACS Reflective Program is a multicenter observational quality-enhancement project that compared the use of ADPri therapy in 2 phases (November 2011-March 2013 and April 2013-November 2013) and also compared ADPri use with previous national data from the Canadian Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (2000-2008). Of 3099 patients with ACS, 30.6% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 52.3% had non-STEMI, and 17% had unstable angina. There was high use of dual-antiplatelet therapy for ≤ 24 hours, with important increases noted when compared with previous national experience (P for trend, < 0.0001). Clopidogrel was the most commonly used ADPri (82.2%), with lower use of the newer agents ticagrelor (9.0%) and prasugrel (3.1%). Ticagrelor and prasugrel use was most frequent in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention PCI (34.3%). There was relatively lower use of ADPri therapy at discharge; it was given mainly to patients who did not undergo PCI (68.2%) and to those with non-ST-elevation ACS (82%). When comparing the 2 consecutive phases of data collection in the ACS Reflective, there was an approximate 3- and 2-fold increase in the early and discharge use of the newer ADPri agents, respectively. In conclusion, there has been a temporal increase in ADPri use compared with previous national experience and an increased uptake of newer ADPri agents. Additional work is needed to identify and address barriers limiting optimal implementation of these newer guideline-recommended agents into routine Canadian practice.