Skip to main content
Download PDF

Lifeday coverage of oral anticoagulants and one-year relative survival in patients with atrial fibrillation: a population-based study in Estonia

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders volume 23, Article number: 398 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Routine oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended for almost all high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, yet registries show that OACs are still underused. Our aim was to study the lifeday coverage (LDC) of OAC prescriptions and its relationship with one-year mortality rates of AF patients aged ≥ 65 in Estonia for the years 2019 and 2020.

Methods

Medical data for AF patients aged ≥ 65 years from 2018 and alive as of 01.01.2019 (cohort I) and new AF documentation from 2019 and alive as of 01.01.2020 (cohort II) was obtained from the Health Insurance Fund’s electronic database. The data was linked to the nationwide Estonian Medical Prescription Centre’s database of prescribed OACs. For LDC analysis, daily doses of guideline-recommended OACs were used. The patients were categorized into three LDC groups: 0%, 1–79%, and ≥ 80%. The data was linked to the Estonian Causes of Death Registry to establish the date of death and mortality rate for the whole Estonian population aged ≥ 65.

Results

There were 34,018 patients in cohort I and 9,175 patients with new AF documentation (cohort II), previously not included in cohort I. Of the patients, 77.7% and 68.6% had at least one prescription of OAC in cohorts I and II respectively. 57.4% in cohort I and 44.5% in cohort II had an LDC of ≥ 80%. The relative survival estimates at 1 year for LDC lifeday coverage groups 0%, 1–79%, and ≥ 80% were 91.2%, 98.2%, and 98.5% (cohort I), and 91.9%, 95.2%, and 97.6% (cohort II), respectively.

Conclusions

Despite clear indications for OAC use, LDC is still insufficient and anticoagulation is underused for stroke prevention in Estonia. Further education of the medical community and patients is needed to achieve higher lifeday coverage of prescribed OACs.

Peer Review reports

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in clinical practice and its prevalence increases with age [1]. AF is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality [1]. Routine use of oral anticoagulants (OACs) is recommended for patients with AF with CHA2DS2-VASc score values ≥ 2 (men) and ≥ 3 (women) for stroke prevention [1, 2].

In the last decade, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been mostly replaced by non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as the first-line management for stroke prevention [3]. Despite the ease of use and the wide availability of NOACs, registries of AF like the GARFIELD-AF [4, 5] show that OACs, in general, are still underused for stroke prevention [6]. In the GARFIELD-AF study, 38.0% of patients with an indication for OAC did not receive any anticoagulation [4]. The discontinuation rate was 13.0% in this registry, defined as the cessation of treatment for ≥ 7 days. Although 45.4% of patients restarted their therapy, they still had worse clinical outcomes with a higher chance of stroke or systemic embolism [7]. As most registries for studying AF patients rely on the self-reported use of OACs, their real-life use is not known [8]. In Estonia, a nationwide digital Medical Prescription Centre records the data of prescriptions and dispensed prescriptions for all prescription drugs in the country.

The main aim of this analysis was to study a novel and easily implementable way to characterize OAC prescriptions lifeday coverage (LDC) for stroke prevention for AF patients aged ≥ 65 years in Estonia and to investigate overall survival and AF-specific survival differences in LDC groups. Another objective was to characterize differences in concomitant diseases and the use of OACs between different LDC groups.

Methods

Data sources and study population

Estonia is a digitally advanced country with a population of 1.33 million [9]. Estonia also has a solidary health insurance system covering all permanent residents of Estonia or persons living with permits in Estonia who pay the social tax or are insured by the state [10]. All medical records and data about the prescription of drugs are digital and centralized in the Estonian Medical Prescription Centre’s database, which covers more than 99% of all prescriptions [11]. Every individual has a unique personal identification number. This allows us to link the diagnoses of each patient to information about the studied drugs. By adding information from the Estonian Causes of Death Registry for the date of death, it is possible to calculate the number of daily doses for each drug prescribed for every day alive, thereby providing information on LDC for each drug studied.

The study population consisted of patients aged ≥ 65 years with documented diagnoses of AF (I48, International Statistical Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10)) from the year 2018 and alive as of 01.01.2019 (cohort I) and patients with a new AF documentation from the year 2019 and alive as of 01.01.2020 (cohort II), previously not included in cohort I. The list of patients was obtained from the Estonian Health Insurance Fund’s (EHIF) database. This national database contains medical information about each inpatient and outpatient visit in Estonia, including the diagnoses according to ICD-10, and the coding for all medical services provided. The diagnoses of selected concomitant diseases (cancer (C00-C97), diabetes (E10, E11), hypertension (I10-I15), ischemic heart disease (I21, I22, I25.2), stroke (I63, I64, I69.3), peripheral artery disease (I70.2), renal insufficiency (N17-N19) and coronary stent (Z95.5)) were also obtained for the patients studied for the same period. The data from the nationwide Estonian Medical Prescription Centre about prescribed OACs for the period 01.01–31.12.2019 and 01.01–31.12.2020 or until death, if earlier, was also obtained for the same patients. For LDC analysis, daily doses of OACs recommended for stroke prevention were used as follows: warfarin (3 mg or 5 mg once a day (OD)) rivaroxaban (15 mg or 20 mg OD), apixaban 2.5 mg or 5 mg twice a day (BD)), dabigatran (110 mg or 150 mg BD) and edoxaban (30 mg or 60 mg OD). In case the dosing was different from the dosing recommended in guidelines [1], patients were categorized into the 0% group of OAC lifeday coverage. Because no information on the international normalized ratio (INR) was available for patients’ warfarin use, we considered dosing to be correct when at least 3 mg or 5 mg were used. Obtained data was linked to the Estonian Causes of Death Registry to establish the date of death. All-cause mortality rates by age and sex distribution were also obtained from the Estonian Causes of Death Registry to establish baseline mortality rate for the whole Estonian population aged ≥ 65 years for the years 2019 and 2020.

The study protocol was approved (document number 341/T-7) by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In accordance with the Estonian Personal Data Protection Act and agreement from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu, individual informed consent to participate in this study was not needed, because patients were assigned a unique study number by the Health Insurance Fund and non-personalized data was released for analysis. All the data received from the Health Insurance Fund was anonymous and no individuals could be identified.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are presented as means and standard deviation (SD) and categorical variables as frequencies and percentages.

LDC was defined as the proportion of days alive that are covered by daily OAC dose prescriptions recommended for stroke prevention. LDC was calculated for the one-year period considering also prescriptions from the previous year that overlapped with the study year. For patients who died during the one-year period, the LDC was calculated for the number of days alive. Due to lack of data, medication breaks were not taken into account in this study.

If a different OAC was prescribed for the patient during the study period, then the day of the new prescription was considered the switching day and the remaining doses of the previous OAC were excluded from LDC calculation.

The LDC groups of OACs were compared using Student’s t-test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test for categorical variables and the adjusted p-values were reported using the Bonferroni correction.

The all-cause mortality was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences between groups were tested by log-rank test. The expected survival was estimated using the age, sex and calendar year-matched general Estonian population data. Relative survival was calculated to estimate disease-specific survival as the ratio of the observed, all-cause survival of all the patients to the expected all-cause survival in the general population [12].

An underlying assumption of relative survival is that deaths associated with, or due to atrial fibrillation are an insignificant proportion of all deaths. Relative survival was estimated using the Pohar Perme non-parametric method, implemented in R package ‘relsurv’[13] and survival curves were compared using a log-rank type test [14]. All statistical analyses were performed using R [15], version 4.2.1.

Results

In cohort I, there were 34,018 patients (60.3% females) with mean age 78.1 (SD = 7.3) years, and in cohort II, 9,175 patients (59.3% females) with mean age 77.5 (SD = 8.2) years. In cohorts I and II, 26,449 (77.7%) and 6,298 (68.6%) patients had at least one prescription of OAC, respectively. Patients in cohort II were younger (77.5 vs. 78.2 years, p < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of concomitant diseases like cancer (14.8% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.024), renal insufficiency (11.5% s 9.7%, p < 0.001), coronary artery disease (13.4% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.003), and coronary stenting (8.2% vs. 7.0%, p < 0.001). Patients in cohort I had a higher prevalence of diabetes (23.4% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.021) and hypertension (88.4% vs. 86.7%, p < 0.001). The baseline characteristics of the study cohorts are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline characteristic of cohorts I and II.
Full size table

The proportion of patients for whom the LDC of prescribed OACs was ≥ 80% was 57.4% in cohort I (55.6% of men and 57.7% of women) and 44.5% in cohort II (43.8% of men and 45.0% of women). The LDC distribution was U-shaped for both cohorts, where most of the patients were concentrated at the ends of the spectrum. The distribution of LDC is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

OAC prescriptions lifeday coverage

Oral anticoagulant prescriptions lifeday coverage for cohorts I and II. The number of males, females, and total patients in different lifeday coverage groups is shown with the proportion of patients in percentages

Full size image

We divided both cohorts into three groups by LDC proportions: 0%, 1–79%, and ≥ 80%. Patients in cohort I without any OAC prescriptions (0% group) showed a higher prevalence of stroke compared to the groups where OACs were prescribed. At the same time, a lower prevalence of diabetes and hypertension was noted in the LDC 0% group. This observation was not seen in cohort II.

There were 19,518 patients (57.4%) with a LDC of ≥ 80% in cohort I. A total of 14,448 patients (74%) had one prescribed OAC and 4,733 patients (24.2%) had two different prescribed OACs during the follow-up period of one year. For a small proportion of patients, three (1.7%) or four (0.1%) different OACs were prescribed during the study period in the LDC group ≥ 80%.

In cohort II, LDC for 4,083 patients (44.5%) was ≥ 80%. As in cohort I, most patients, 3,663 (89.7%) had one prescribed OAC, and 392 patients (9.5%) had two different prescribed OACs. Three or four different OACs were prescribed in 0.7% and 0.0% of the cases, respectively.

The characteristics of the different LDC groups regarding age, sex, concomitant disease, and different OAC use are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 Comparison of different OAC lifeday coverage groups related to age, sex, and concomitant disease in cohort I
Full size table
Table 3 Comparison of different OAC lifeday coverage groups related to age, sex, and concomitant disease in cohort II.
Full size table

While examining relationships between the OAC prescriptions LDC and the LDC of dispensed prescriptions in both cohorts, we found a clear correlation between them (Pearson’s correlation coefficients were 0.96 and 0.98 in cohorts I and II, respectively), indicating that most prescriptions were also dispensed (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Differences between prescriptions and dispensed prescriptions OAC lifeday coverage

Differences between prescribed and dispensed prescriptions OAC lifeday coverage for cohorts I and II. Patients are grouped by prescribed lifeday coverage in 1% increments. The diagonal line represents prescribed OAC lifeday coverage in percentages. Dots represent the proportion of dispensed prescriptions with a lower 95% confidence interval

Full size image

During the one-year follow-up period, 3,042 patients (9.0%; 1,279 men and 1,762 women) and 961 patients (10.5%; 411 men and 550 women) died in cohort I (2019) and cohort II (2020), respectively. The observed survival rates at 1 year for LDC groups 0%, 1–79% and ≥ 80% were 85.3% (95% CI 84.5–86.1%), 92.3% (95% CI 91.7–93.0%), and 92.6% (95% CI 92.5–93.2%) (cohort I) and 85.9% (95% CI 84.6–87.2%), 89.8% (95% CI 88.5–91.0%), and 92.0 (95% CI 91.2–92.9%) (cohort II), respectively. The all-cause mortality rate for the Estonian population aged ≥ 65 years was 4.7% for both years (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4 The observed and relative survival estimates at 1 year for LDC groups in cohort I
Full size table
Table 5 The observed and relative survival estimates at 1 year for LDC groups in cohort II.
Full size table

The relative survival estimates at 1 year for LDC groups 0%, 1–79%, and ≥ 80% were 91.2% (95% CI 90.4–92.1%), 98.2% (95% CI 97.6–98.9%), and 98.5% (95% CI 98.1–98.9%) (cohort I) and 91.9% (95% CI 90.5–93.3%), 95.2% (95% CI 93.9–96.6%), and 97.6% (95% CI 96.7–98.5%) (cohort II), respectively (Tables 4 and 5).

In both cohorts, observed and relative survival were significantly lower in LDC 0% groups compared to other LDC groups (all p-values < 0.001). The relative survival of male patients was similar to that of female patients, but younger patients (65–74 years) tend to have increased relative survival compared to older patients (≥ 75 years) (Tables 4 and 5).

Comparison of relative survival curves, defined as the ratio of the observed patient survival to the expected survival of a comparable group in the general population, matched to the patients with respect to age, sex, and calendar year, for the cohorts by the LDC groups for ≥ 65-year-old patients is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of relative survival curves by lifeday coverage groups among ≥ 65-year-old patients in Estonia

Comparison of relative survival curves for ≥ 65-year-old patients in Estonia. Patients with one-year follow-ups were divided into three lifeday coverage groups. Relative survival was calculated as the ratio of the observed, all-cause survival of all the patients to the expected all-cause survival in the general population

Full size image

Discussion

AF is strongly related to an increased risk of stroke [16,17,18] and anticoagulation is the cornerstone of stroke prevention for this population [19,20,21,22].

Our study describes an easily implementable method to characterize and assess the persistent use of OACs for the prevention of stroke. By using LDC analysis, we can obtain an accurate estimate of the real-world use of these drugs. The fact that the Estonian digital Medical Prescription Centre’s database contains the data of more than 99% of all prescriptions [11], means that the present study covers the whole Estonian population of 1.33 million [9]. To our knowledge, this type of prescription data analysis has not been performed in Estonia earlier.

As was shown, 77.7% and 68.6% of all AF patients aged ≥ 65 years had at least one OAC prescription in cohort I and cohort II, respectively. Data from the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF II registries have shown OAC use in 69% and 87% of the patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2, respectively, which coincides roughly with our data about the overall use of OACs [4, 8].

However, these registries use self-reported data, which has many drawbacks [23]. The accuracy of data decreases with longer periods observed [24], and studies with other drugs have reported over- or underestimation of real-life use [25].

Other technologies like electronic tablet dispensers [26, 27] or QR-code based monitoring [28] have been developed to obtain a better estimate of tablet use, but these are mainly applicable in small-scale clinical trials and not suitable for monitoring the whole population [29].

Considering LDC, only 57.4% of the patients in cohort I and 44.5% of the patients in cohort II had OAC prescriptions, covering ≥ 80% of days alive. Data from Western European countries have shown that the persistence of NOAC therapy declined to 82% after one year. However, in persistent patients, 80% had a medication possession rate of ≥ 90% [30]. This result is in stark contrast with Estonian data, indicating the need to improve OAC use persistence.

As NOACs are fast-acting short-lasting drugs with a mean half-life ranging around 5–17 h [31], then missing of recommended doses or interruptions of continuous treatment can place the patients at higher stroke risk [32, 33]. This means that an optimum LDC of prescriptions should be aimed at reaching 100%. At the same time, studies with some NOACs have found that minimum effective coverage needs to be no less than 80% [32]. A 100% coverage was seen in only 33.4% and 23.3% of the patients from cohorts I and II, respectively. Further interventions and education of patients and healthcare providers are needed, to achieve higher coverage.

There was a statistical difference in mean age between the two cohorts due to the large sample size and a minor difference in mean and standard deviation, but this has no clinical implications. We saw more patients with concomitant renal insufficiency in cohort II (2020). A marked increase in the prescriptions of only one OAC during follow-up and a decrease in the use of 2 or 3 different OACs was noted in cohort II. As the prescription rate of warfarin was also reduced, then these changes seem to be due to the shifting from warfarin to NOACs, as well as to the wider availability of these drugs [34].

However, there occurred some differences between the LDC groups. Patients in the 0% groups were statistically older, but this difference was small. We did observe a higher prevalence of previously diagnosed stroke in the 0% group of cohort I. It could be hypothesized that the absence of OACs for patients with a previous stroke could be due to the fear of hemorrhagic events. However, at the same time, it is known that a previous stroke is an important risk factor for recurrent stroke [35], so careful assessment of OAC use or withholding the treatment is warranted [1]. This trend was not seen in cohort II.

We also saw a higher prevalence of cancer diagnosis among the population where no OACs were used in cohort I. As mentioned previously, we were not able to assess the prevalence of real contraindications for OAC use, so the reasons why the use of OACs is lower among cancer patients are not known. This might be associated with the use of low molecular weight heparin in this group, fear of bleeding, or frailty of the patients.

Surprisingly, we found a lower prevalence of hypertension in the 0% groups compared to the groups receiving OACs. A lower prevalence of diabetes was also seen in the 0% group in cohort I. This could be explained by the lower perceived risk of stroke among patients without concomitant diabetes or hypertension. At the same time, as the prevalence of hypertension (84.9% and 84.0%) and diabetes (20.6% and 21.6%) was still high in the 0% OAC groups of both cohorts, then the reasons why no anticoagulation was used for these patients is still uncertain.

In both cohorts, observed and relative survival were significantly lower in LDC 0% groups compared to other LDC groups indicating a beneficial effect of OAC use on survival in these patients [36].

Adherence to OAC therapy diminishes with time [37] and is related to increased stroke risk [33] One way to increase the LDC of OAC prescriptions could be on-demand or continuous assessment of the patients’ LDC by the family physician. Patients´ data from the Estonian Medical Prescription Centre’s database can be accessed by different medical software used in Estonia. An integrated tool that alarms the family physician or nurse of a lower-than-threshold LDC could be helpful to schedule a visit or remote consultation and renew the patient’s prescription. The same system could also be used for other medications that need to be taken regularly (e.g., anti-hypertensive or glycose-lowering drugs). Some small studies involving smartphone apps for prescription renewal reminders and educational materials have shown better adherence to OAC therapy in patients with AF [38, 39].

When examining the relationship between the data on prescriptions and dispensed prescriptions, we found that most prescribed drugs were also dispensed, meaning that an important culprit of low LDC seems to be the low rate of prescribing by the physician. Integrating individual patients’ LDC data in everyday clinical practice in an accessible and simple manner could improve long-term adherence to OAC therapy and other medications.

There are some limitations to this study that need to be addressed. As stated above, we could not assess the proportion of patients with true contraindications to OAC therapy. Therefore, we may have overestimated the proportion of patients in the 0% groups who should have received OAC therapy. Also, there might have been patients in the 0% category who were using low molecular weight heparin for stroke prevention that were not included in the study. Nor did we have access to INR monitoring data, so we were unable to assess the time in the therapeutic range for warfarin use for obtaining a reliable estimate of correct dosing.

There could be other confounding reasons for survival differences between the LDC groups that were not taken into account in this study as in-depth information was not available for every patient.

As our study focused on prescribed LDC, then the true estimate of the individual patients’ drug adherence remains out of the scope of the present study.

Conclusions

Despite clear indications for OAC therapy, the LDC of prescriptions is still low and OACs are underused for stroke prevention in Estonia. Further education of the medical community and patients is needed to achieve higher coverage. Technical improvements and integrated tools that help to assess LDC in everyday clinical practice could improve patient care and adherence to chronic medical therapy.

Data Availability

Due to the lack of a publicly accessible data repository, the datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AF:

Atrial fibrillation

CAD:

Coronary artery disease

EHIF:

Estonian Health Insurance Fund

ICD-10:

International Statistical Classification of Diseases 10th version

INR:

International normalized ratio

LDC:

Lifeday coverage

NOAC:

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant

OAC:

Oral anticoagulant

PAD:

Peripheral artery disease

SD:

Standard deviation

VKA:

Vitamin K antagonist

References

  1. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, Boriani G, Castella M, Dan GA, Dilaveris PE, et al. : 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic surgery (EACTS): the Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Steffel J, Collins R, Antz M, Cornu P, Desteghe L, Haeusler KG, Oldgren J, Reinecke H, Roldan-Schilling V, Rowell N, et al. 2021 European Heart Rhythm Association practical guide on the Use of Non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with Atrial Fibrillation. EP Europace. 2021;23(10):1612–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mega JL. A new era for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):1052–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bassand JP, Apenteng PN, Atar D, Camm AJ, Cools F, Corbalan R, Fitzmaurice DA, Fox KA, Goto S, Haas S, et al. GARFIELD-AF: a worldwide prospective registry of patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Future Cardiol. 2021;17(1):19–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Apenteng PN, Murray ET, Holder R, Hobbs FDR, Fitzmaurice DA, Investigators UG, Committee GS. An international longitudinal registry of patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke (GARFIELD): the UK protocol. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2013;13(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hsu JC, Freeman JV. Underuse of vitamin K antagonist and direct oral anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a contemporary review. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;104(2):301–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cools F, Johnson D, Camm AJ, Bassand JP, Verheugt FWA, Yang S, Tsiatis A, Fitzmaurice DA, Goldhaber SZ, Kayani G, et al. Risks associated with discontinuation of oral anticoagulation in newly diagnosed patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the GARFIELD-AF Registry. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19(9):2322–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Steinberg BA, Gao H, Shrader P, Pieper K, Thomas L, Camm AJ, Ezekowitz MD, Fonarow GC, Gersh BJ, Goldhaber S, et al. International trends in clinical characteristics and oral anticoagulation treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the GARFIELD-AF, ORBIT-AF I, and ORBIT-AF II registries. Am Heart J. 2017;194:132–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Statistics Estonia. Population figure [https://www.stat.ee/en/find-statistics/statistics-theme/population/population-figure.

  10. Health Insurance Fund. Health Insurance [https://www.haigekassa.ee/en/people/health-insurance].

  11. e-Estonia. e-Prescription [https://e-estonia.com/solutions/healthcare/e-prescription/].

  12. Ederer F, Axtell LM, Cutler SJ. The relative survival rate: a statistical methodology. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1961;6:101–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Perme MP, Stare J, Estève J. On estimation in relative survival. Biometrics. 2012;68(1):113–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grafféo N, Castell F, Belot A, Giorgi R. A log-rank-type test to compare net survival distributions. Biometrics. 2016;72(3):760–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. R Core Team: A language and environment for statistical computing. In, Vienna. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.

  16. Pistoia F, Sacco S, Tiseo C, Degan D, Ornello R, Carolei A. The epidemiology of Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke. Cardiol Clin. 2016;34(2):255–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Migdady I, Russman A, Buletko AB. Atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke: a clinical review. Semin Neurol. 2021;41(4):348–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Healey JS, Amit G, Field TS. Atrial fibrillation and stroke: how much atrial fibrillation is enough to cause a stroke? Curr Opin Neurol. 2020;33(1):17–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jame S, Barnes G. Stroke and thromboembolism prevention in atrial fibrillation. Heart. 2020;106(1):10–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Imberti JF, Mei DA, Vitolo M, Bonini N, Proietti M, Potpara T, Lip GYH, Boriani G. Comparing atrial fibrillation guidelines: focus on stroke prevention, bleeding risk assessment and oral anticoagulant recommendations. Eur J Intern Med. 2022;101:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Díez-Manglano J, Gomes-Martín J, Al-Cheikh-Felices P, Pérez SI, Díez-Angulo R, Clemente-Sarasa C. Adherence to guidelines and mortality in atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiol. 2014;176(2):430–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwammenthal Y, Bornstein NM, Goldbourt U, Koton S, Schwartz R, Koren-Morag N, Grossman E, Tanne D. Anticoagulation remains underused in prevention of stroke associated with atrial fibrillation: insights from two consecutive national surveys. Int J Cardiol. 2011;152(3):356–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sevilla-Cazes J, Finkleman BS, Chen J, Brensinger CM, Epstein AE, Streiff MB, Kimmel SE. Association between patient-reported Medication Adherence and Anticoagulation Control. Am J Med. 2017;130(9):1092–1098e1092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stirratt MJ, Dunbar-Jacob J, Crane HM, Simoni JM, Czajkowski S, Hilliard ME, Aikens JE, Hunter CM, Velligan DI, Huntley K, et al. Self-report measures of medication adherence behavior: recommendations on optimal use. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(4):470–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Larsen KG, Areberg J, Åström DO. Are self-reported and self-monitored adherence good proxies for reaching relevant plasma concentrations?: experiences from a study of anti-depressants in healthy volunteers. Clin Trials. 2021;18(4):505–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Parker CS, Chen Z, Price M, Gross R, Metlay JP, Christie JD, Brensinger CM, Newcomb CW, Samaha FF, Kimmel SE. Adherence to warfarin assessed by electronic pill caps, clinician assessment, and patient reports: results from the IN-RANGE study. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(9):1254–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Eisenberger U, Wüthrich RP, Bock A, Ambühl P, Steiger J, Intondi A, Kuranoff S, Maier T, Green D, DiCarlo L, et al. Medication adherence assessment: high accuracy of the new Ingestible Sensor System in kidney transplants. Transplantation. 2013;96(3):245–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Capranzano P, Francaviglia B, Sardone A, Agnello F, Valenti N, Frazzetto M, Legnazzi M, Occhipinti G, Scalia L, Calvi V, et al. Suitability for elderly with heart disease of a QR code-based feedback of drug intake: overcoming limitations of current medication adherence telemonitoring systems. Int J Cardiol. 2021;327:209–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lam WY, Fresco P. Medication adherence measures: an overview. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:217047.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Komen JJ, Pottegård A, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Forslund T, Hjemdahl P, Wettermark B, Hellfritzsch M, Hallas J, Olesen M, Bennie M, et al. Persistence and adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation across five western european countries. Europace. 2021;23(11):1722–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Heidbuchel H, Verhamme P, Alings M, Antz M, Diener HC, Hacke W, Oldgren J, Sinnaeve P, Camm AJ, Kirchhof P. Updated European Heart Rhythm Association practical guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2015;17(10):1467–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Capiau A, Mehuys E, Van Tongelen I, Christiaens T, De Sutter A, Steurbaut S, Moudallel S, Rydant S, Vrijens B, de Backer TLM, et al. Community pharmacy-based study of adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Heart. 2020;106(22):1740–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Komen JJ, Heerdink ER, Klungel OH, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Forslund T, Wettermark B, Hjemdahl P. Long-term persistence and adherence with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and their associations with stroke risk. Eur Heart J - Cardiovasc Pharmacotherapy. 2020;7(FI1):f72–f80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Grymonprez M, De Backer TL, Capiau A, Vauterin D, Mehuys E, Boussery K, Steurbaut S, Lahousse L. Trends in oral anticoagulant use in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium from 2013 to 2019: a nationwide cohort study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2022.

  35. Khanevski AN, Bjerkreim AT, Novotny V, Naess H, Thomassen L, Logallo N, Kvistad CE. Recurrent ischemic stroke: incidence, predictors, and impact on mortality. Acta Neurol Scand. 2019;140(1):3–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Toorop MMA, Chen Q, Tichelaar VYIG, Cannegieter SC, Lijfering WM. Predictors, time course, and outcomes of persistence patterns in oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a dutch Nationwide Cohort Study. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(40):4126–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Banerjee A, Benedetto V, Gichuru P, Burnell J, Antoniou S, Schilling RJ, Strain WD, Ryan R, Watkins C, Marshall T, et al. Adherence and persistence to direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a population-based study. Heart. 2020;106(2):119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Senoo K, Miki T, Ohkura T, Iwakoshi H, Nishimura T, Shiraishi H, Teramukai S, Matoba S. A smartphone app to improve oral anticoagulation adherence in patients with Atrial Fibrillation: prospective observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10(1):e30807.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Turakhia M, Sundaram V, Smith SN, Ding V, Michael Ho P, Kowey PR, Piccini JP, Foody J, Birmingham MC, Ianus J, et al. Efficacy of a centralized, blended electronic, and human intervention to improve direct oral anticoagulant adherence: Smartphones to improve rivaroxaban ADHEREnce in atrial fibrillation (SmartADHERE) a randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J. 2021;237:68–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Ms. E. Jaigma for the linguistic revision of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Estonian Research Council grant No PRG435 (Jaan Eha).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, 8 Puusepa Street, 50406, Tartu, Estonia

    Priit Pauklin, Toomas Marandi, Tiia Ainla, Jaan Eha & Priit Kampus

  2. Heart Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, 8 Puusepa Street, 50406, Tartu, Estonia

    Priit Pauklin & Jaan Eha

  3. Centre of Cardiology, North Estonia Medical Centre, 19 Sütiste Street, 13419, Tallinn, Estonia

    Toomas Marandi, Tiia Ainla & Priit Kampus

  4. Estonian Genome Center, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, 23b Riia Street, 51010, Tartu, Estonia

    Mart Kals

  5. Linnamõisa Family Medicine Center, 16 Koskla Street, 10615, Tallinn, Estonia

    Katrin Martinson

Authors
  1. Priit Pauklin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toomas Marandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mart Kals
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tiia Ainla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katrin Martinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jaan Eha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Priit Kampus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PP, TM, TA, KM, JE, and PK participated in interpreting the data and writing the manuscript. PP, MK, and PK analyzed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priit Pauklin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University ofTartu (341/T-7). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. In accordance with the Estonian Personal Data Protection Act and agreement from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Tartu, individual informed consent to participate in this study was not needed, because patients were assigned a unique study number by the Health Insurance Fund and non-personalized data was released for analysis.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

PP has received lecturing fees from Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Servier, Bayer and support for attending meetings from Abbott Medical. TM has received lecturing fees from AstraZeneca. KM has received lecturing fees from Pfizer. TA has received lecturing and consulting fees from Bayer and support for attending meetings from Bayer, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. PK has received support for attending of meetings from Abbott Medical. MK and JE have declared no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pauklin, P., Marandi, T., Kals, M. et al. Lifeday coverage of oral anticoagulants and one-year relative survival in patients with atrial fibrillation: a population-based study in Estonia. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 23, 398 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03415-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03415-4

Keywords

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2261

Contact us