↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Satisfaction with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Satisfaction with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s152109
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmen Suárez Fernández, Luis Castilla-Guerra, Jesus Cantero Hinojosa, Josep Maria Suriñach, Fernando Acosta de Bilbao, Juan José Tamarit, José Luis Diaz Diaz, Jose Luis Hernandez, Antonio Pose, Manuel Montero-Pérez-Barquero, Jaume Roquer, Jaime Gállego, José Vivancos, Jose María Mostaza

Abstract

Although, by itself, atrial fibrillation is associated with an impairment of quality of life antithrombotic therapy may play a role. To evaluate the satisfaction with anticoagulant treatment in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who attended internal medicine departments in Spain. Patients from two different cross-sectional studies were combined. To measure the satisfaction with anticoagulant treatment, the Anti-Clot-Treatment Scale (ACTS) questionnaire was completed by every patient. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the variables associated with satisfaction of patients receiving oral anticoagulants. A total of 1,309 patients (mean age 78.5±8.4 years; 49.3% men; CHA2DS2VASC 4.9±1.5; HAS-BLED 2.0±0.9) were included in the study, of whom 902 (68.9%) were taking vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and 407 (31.1%) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Overall, satisfaction with oral anticoagulation was high (ACTS Burdens scale 49.69±9.45; ACTS Benefits scale 11.35±2.61). The perceived burdens with anticoagulant treatment were lower in men, as well as in patients with no dependency, normal renal function, who were not polymedicated, or who had moderate bleeding risk. Among patients taking VKA, those subjects with a lower number of International Normalized Ratio (INR) determinations in the last 6 months or with an optimal time in the therapeutic range exhibited a lower perceived burden. Patients taking DOACs (vs VKA) showed a lower perceived burden with anticoagulation. Benefits with anti-coagulation were higher in men, younger patients, those with no dependency, or low bleeding risk. Perceived benefits were higher in patients taking DOACs (vs VKA). Satisfaction with oral anticoagulation was high in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, who were attending internal medicine departments daily in Spain. Among patients taking VKA, those subjects with a lower number of INR determinations in the last 6 months or with an optimal time in the therapeutic range exhibited a lower perceived burden with anticoagulant therapy. Patients taking DOACs (vs VKA) showed lower perceived burdens and higher perceived benefits with anticoagulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Other 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,762,278
of 25,508,813 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,435
of 1,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,846
of 449,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#30
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,508,813 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 449,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.