↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for and consequences of oral anticoagulant underuse in atrial fibrillation with heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Heart, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reasons for and consequences of oral anticoagulant underuse in atrial fibrillation with heart failure
Published in
Heart, January 2018
DOI 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312720
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianluigi Savarese, Ulrik Sartipy, Leif Friberg, Ulf Dahlström, Lars H Lund

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with heart failure (HF), and oral anticoagulants (OAC) are indicated. The aim was to assess prevalence of, predictors of and consequences of OAC non-use. We included patients with AF, HF and no previous valve replacement from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. High and low CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were defined as above/below median. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the associations between baseline characteristics and OAC use and between CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores and OAC use. Multivariable Cox regressions were used to assess associations between CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, OAC use and two composite outcomes: all-cause death/stroke and all-cause death/major bleeding. Of 21 865 patients, only 12 659 (58%) received OAC. Selected predictors of OAC non-use were treatment with platelet inhibitors, less use of HF treatments, paroxysmal AF, history of bleeding, no previous stroke, planned follow-up in primary care, older age, living alone, lower income and variables associated with more severe HF. For each 1-unit increase in CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED, the ORs (95% CI) of OAC use were 1.24 (1.21-1.27) and 0.32 (0.30-0.33), and the HRs for death/stroke were 1.08 (1.06-1.10) and for death/major bleeding 1.18 (1.15-1.21), respectively. For high versus low CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED, the ORs of OAC use were 1.23 (1.15-1.32) and 0.20 (0.19-0.21), and the HRs for death/stroke were 1.25 (1.19-1.30) and for death/major bleeding 1.28 (1.21-1.34), respectively. Patients with AF and concomitant HF do not receive OAC on rational grounds. Bleeding risk inappropriately affects decision-making more than stroke risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,916,423
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Heart
#2,336
of 5,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,733
of 441,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart
#53
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.