Which Recommendations Are You Using? A Survey of Emergency Physician Management of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Both the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) have published documents to guide atrial fibrillation (AF) management. In 2021, the CAEP updated its AF checklist. Prior to this update, the recommendations of the 2 organizations differed in s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:CJC open (Online) 2022-05, Vol.4 (5), p.466-473
Hauptverfasser: Daniel, Ryan C., Atzema, Clare L., Cho, Dennis D., Davis, Philip J., Costello, Lorne L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Both the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) have published documents to guide atrial fibrillation (AF) management. In 2021, the CAEP updated its AF checklist. Prior to this update, the recommendations of the 2 organizations differed in several key areas, including the suggested cardioversion timeframe, the factors determining cardioversion eligibility, and anticoagulant initiation after cardioversion. Whether emergency physicians (EPs) are aware of, or adhering to, one, both, or neither of these documents is unknown. We assessed document awareness, adherence, and EP practice using a piloted questionnaire administered to EPs at 5 emergency departments in 3 provinces. Of 166 survey recipients, 123 (74.1%) responded. The majority (64.7%) worked at an academic site, 38.8% identified as female, and median years in practice was 10.0. Most (93.1%) were aware of at least one of the documents; 45.7% were aware of both. Reported awareness was higher for the CCS (77.6%) vs the CAEP (61.2%) guidelines. Respondents varied in their adherence, with 40.5% using parts of both documents. Considerable practice variability occurred when recommendations conflicted. Despite its use not being recommended by either organization, half of respondents (50.0%) reported using the CHA2DS2-VASc score as their stroke-risk assessment tool. Although most surveyed EPs were aware of at least one organization’s AF documents, many reported using parts of both. When recommendations conflicted, EPs were divided in their decision-making. These findings emphasize the need to improve consensus between organizations and further improve knowledge translation. La Société canadienne de cardiologie (SCC) et l’Association canadienne des médecins d’urgence (ACMU) ont publié des documents pour orienter la prise en charge de la fibrillation auriculaire (FA). En 2021, l’ACMU a actualisé sa liste de vérification sur la FA. Avant cette actualisation, les recommandations des deux organismes différaient sur plusieurs points importants, notamment le laps de temps suggéré avant la cardioversion, les facteurs qui déterminent l’admissibilité à la cardioversion, et l’amorce du traitement anticoagulant après la cardioversion. On ignore si les médecins d’urgence (MU) connaissent ou adhère à un, à deux ou à aucun de ces documents. Nous avons évalué la connaissance qu’ont les MU de ces documents, leur adhésion et leur pratique grâce à un questionnaire pilote
ISSN:2589-790X
2589-790X
DOI:10.1016/j.cjco.2022.01.005