A survey of long-term antiarrhythmic therapy in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation

Bajorek, BV; Krass, I; Ogle, SJ; Duguid, MJ; Shenfield, GM

A survey of long-term antiarrhythmic therapy in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation

Bajorek, BV

Krass, I Ogle, SJ Duguid, MJ Shenfield, GM

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Australian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 2001, 31 (2), pp. 93 - 97
Issue Date:: 2001-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2010004378OK.pdf		442.49 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bajorek, BV https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2532-7187	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Krass, I	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Ogle, SJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Duguid, MJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Shenfield, GM	en_US
dc.date.issued	2001-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Australian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 2001, 31 (2), pp. 93 - 97	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0310-6810	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/15512
dc.description.abstract	Aim: To investigate the use of long-term antiarrhythmic (rhythm-control [RHY] and rate-control [RAC]) therapy for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in elderly patients. Method: Data were collected retrospectively from the medical records of 255 patients with AF who were ≥65 years of age and were admitted to Royal North Shore Hospital in the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997. Results: Overall, 192 (75%) patients were discharged on antiarrhythmic therapy for the long-term management of AF. Sixty-six patients (26%) received RHY only, 90 (35%) received RAC only, 36 (14%) were prescribed the combination of RHY + RAC therapy, and 63 (25%) received no therapy. Patients ≥80 years of age were equally likely to receive long-term antiarrhythmic therapy as those <80 years (74% versus 77%, p = 0.65), but a significantly lower proportion of them received RHY only than in those <80 years (17% versus 34%, p = 0.001). The preferred option in older patients was RAC only (42%). Cardiology patients were more likely to receive RHY ± RAC therapy (53%) than Aged Care (16%) or General Medicine patients (16%; p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis indicated that old age and medical specialty were significant predictors for the choice of agent: patients ≥80 years were 2.2 times more likely to receive RAC only in preference to RHY only therapy than their younger counterparts (p = 0.044). Conclusion: Long-term rhythm-control therapy (e.g. amiodarone, sotalol) is potentially underutilised in AF patients ≥80 years of age. Reliance on the use of rate-controlling agents such as digoxin persists in clinical practice.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1002/jppr200131293	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Pharmacology & Pharmacy	en_US
dc.title	A survey of long-term antiarrhythmic therapy in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	31	en_US
utslib.for	1115 Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Graduate School of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	31	en_US

Abstract:

Aim: To investigate the use of long-term antiarrhythmic (rhythm-control [RHY] and rate-control [RAC]) therapy for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in elderly patients. Method: Data were collected retrospectively from the medical records of 255 patients with AF who were ≥65 years of age and were admitted to Royal North Shore Hospital in the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997. Results: Overall, 192 (75%) patients were discharged on antiarrhythmic therapy for the long-term management of AF. Sixty-six patients (26%) received RHY only, 90 (35%) received RAC only, 36 (14%) were prescribed the combination of RHY + RAC therapy, and 63 (25%) received no therapy. Patients ≥80 years of age were equally likely to receive long-term antiarrhythmic therapy as those <80 years (74% versus 77%, p = 0.65), but a significantly lower proportion of them received RHY only than in those <80 years (17% versus 34%, p = 0.001). The preferred option in older patients was RAC only (42%). Cardiology patients were more likely to receive RHY ± RAC therapy (53%) than Aged Care (16%) or General Medicine patients (16%; p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis indicated that old age and medical specialty were significant predictors for the choice of agent: patients ≥80 years were 2.2 times more likely to receive RAC only in preference to RHY only therapy than their younger counterparts (p = 0.044). Conclusion: Long-term rhythm-control therapy (e.g. amiodarone, sotalol) is potentially underutilised in AF patients ≥80 years of age. Reliance on the use of rate-controlling agents such as digoxin persists in clinical practice.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/15512