A clinical decision support tool for improving adherence to guidelines on anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: A cluster-randomized trial in a Swedish primary care setting (the CDS-AF study)

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with substantial morbidity, in particular stroke. Despite good evidence for the reduction of stroke risk with anticoagulant therapy, there remains significant undertreatment. The main aim of the current study was to investigate whether a clinical decision support tool (CDS) for stroke prevention integrated in the electronic health record could improve adherence to guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with AF. Methods and findings We conducted a cluster-randomized trial where all 43 primary care clinics in the county of Östergötland, Sweden (population 444,347), were randomized to be part of the CDS intervention or to serve as controls. The CDS produced an alert for physicians responsible for patients with AF and at increased risk for thromboembolism (according to the CHA2DS2-VASc algorithm) without anticoagulant therapy. The primary endpoint was adherence to guidelines after 1 year. After randomization, there were 22 and 21 primary care clinics in the CDS and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in baseline adherence to guidelines regarding anticoagulant therapy between the 2 groups (CDS group 70.3% [5,186/7,370; 95% CI 62.9%–77.7%], control group 70.0% [4,187/6,009; 95% CI 60.4%–79.6%], p = 0.83). After 12 months, analysis with linear regression with adjustment for primary care clinic size and adherence to guidelines at baseline revealed a significant increase in guideline adherence in the CDS (73.0%, 95% CI 64.6%–81.4%) versus the control group (71.2%, 95% CI 60.8%–81.6%, p = 0.013, with a treatment effect estimate of 0.016 [95% CI 0.003–0.028]; number of patients with AF included in the final analysis 8,292 and 6,508 in the CDS and control group, respectively). Over the study period, there was no difference in the incidence of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism in the CDS group versus the control group (49 [95% CI 43–55] per 1,000 patients with AF in the CDS group compared to 47 [95% CI 39–55] per 1,000 patients with AF in the control group, p = 0.64). Regarding safety, the CDS group had a lower incidence of significant bleeding, with events in 12 (95% CI 9–15) per 1,000 patients with AF compared to 16 (95% CI 12–20) per 1,000 patients with AF in the control group (p = 0.04). Limitations of the study design include that the analysis was carried out in a catchment area with a high baseline adherence rate, and issues regarding reproducibility to other regions. Conclusions The present study demonstrates that a CDS can increase guideline adherence for anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF. Even though the observed difference was small, this is the first randomized study to our knowledge indicating beneficial effects with a CDS in patients with AF. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02635685

[1]  P. Caraballo,et al.  An Automated Clinical Alert System for Newly-Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation , 2015, PloS one.

[2]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  Gillian D Sanders,et al.  Enabling health care decisionmaking through clinical decision support and knowledge management. , 2012, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[4]  Gerhard Hindricks,et al.  2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation--developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. , 2012, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[5]  Abdul V. Roudsari,et al.  Automation Bias - A Hidden Issue for Clinical Decision Support System Use , 2011, ITCH.

[6]  Michael J Pencina,et al.  Association of Preceding Antithrombotic Treatment With Acute Ischemic Stroke Severity and In-Hospital Outcomes Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation , 2017, JAMA.

[7]  G. Raskob,et al.  Global Burden of Thrombosis: Epidemiologic Aspects. , 2016, Circulation research.

[8]  D. Bates,et al.  Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[9]  M Eccles,et al.  Analysis of cluster randomized trials in primary care: a practical approach. , 2000, Family practice.

[10]  Stanley Nattel,et al.  The clinical profile and pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation: relationships among clinical features, epidemiology, and mechanisms. , 2014, Circulation research.

[11]  Marc Berg,et al.  Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. , 2006, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[12]  L. Friberg,et al.  Atrial fibrillation prevalence revisited , 2013, Journal of internal medicine.

[13]  P. Beeler,et al.  Sustained impact of electronic alerts on rate of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism , 2011, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[14]  Joan S. Ash,et al.  Some Unintended Consequences of Clinical Decision Support Systems , 2007, AMIA.

[15]  G. Mead,et al.  Attitudes of physicians regarding anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. , 2011, Age and ageing.

[16]  J. Paramo,et al.  Maintained effectiveness of an electronic alert system to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients , 2008, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[17]  Gregory Y H Lip,et al.  Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. , 2010, Chest.

[18]  I. V. Van Gelder,et al.  Variations in Cause and Management of Atrial Fibrillation in a Prospective Registry of 15 400 Emergency Department Patients in 46 Countries: The RE-LY Atrial Fibrillation Registry , 2014, Circulation.

[19]  Ameen Abu-Hanna,et al.  Effectiveness and usage of a decision support system to improve stroke prevention in general practice: A cluster randomized controlled trial , 2017, PloS one.

[20]  A. Camm,et al.  Evolving antithrombotic treatment patterns for patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation , 2016, Heart.

[21]  Dean F. Sittig,et al.  Review of Reported Clinical Information System Adverse Events in US Food and Drug Administration Databases , 2011, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[22]  L. Moja,et al.  Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2014, American journal of public health.

[23]  F. Griffiths,et al.  Changing Clinical Practice Through Patient Specific Reminders Available at the Time of the Clinical Encounter: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2012, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[24]  Lennart Bergfeldt,et al.  Atrial Fibrillation, Stroke Risk, and Warfarin Therapy Revisited: A Population-Based Study , 2013, Stroke.

[25]  G. Lip,et al.  Underuse of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. , 2010, The American journal of medicine.

[26]  Marilyn D Paterno,et al.  Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  David J. Gladstone,et al.  Potentially Preventable Strokes in High-Risk Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Are Not Adequately Anticoagulated , 2009, Stroke.

[28]  Wei Wu,et al.  The Effect of Computerized Physician Order Entry with Clinical Decision Support on the Rates of Adverse Drug Events: A Systematic Review , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[29]  M. Janzon,et al.  Clinical decision support for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (CDS‐AF): Rationale and design of a cluster randomized trial in the primary care setting , 2017, American heart journal.

[30]  G. Lip,et al.  Risk Profiles and Antithrombotic Treatment of Patients Newly Diagnosed with Atrial Fibrillation at Risk of Stroke: Perspectives from the International, Observational, Prospective GARFIELD Registry , 2013, PloS one.

[31]  Karla Hemming,et al.  Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[32]  D. Fitzmaurice,et al.  Automated Software System to Promote Anticoagulation and Reduce Stroke Risk: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial , 2017, Stroke.

[33]  E Coiera,et al.  Section 1: Health and Clinical Mangement: The Safety and Quality of Decision Support Systems , 2006, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[34]  G. Lip,et al.  The Changing Landscape for Stroke Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[35]  E. Balas,et al.  Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[36]  M. Aguilar,et al.  Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic Therapy to Prevent Stroke in Patients Who Have Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[37]  Mircea Cinteza,et al.  A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment with oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): an international, cluster-randomised trial , 2017, The Lancet.

[38]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Effect of Clinical Decision-Support Systems , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[39]  C. Murray,et al.  Worldwide Epidemiology of Atrial Fibrillation: A Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study , 2014, Circulation.