UCL logo

UCL Discovery

UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Why are outcomes different for registry patients enrolled prospectively and retrospectively? Insights from the global anticoagulant registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF)

Fox, KAA; Accetta, G; Pieper, KS; Bassand, J-P; Camm, AJ; Fitzmaurice, DA; Kayani, G; ... GARFIELD-AF Investigators, .; + view all (2018) Why are outcomes different for registry patients enrolled prospectively and retrospectively? Insights from the global anticoagulant registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF). European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes , 4 (1) pp. 27-35. 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcx030. Green open access

[img]
Preview
Text
document.pdf - ["content_typename_Accepted version" not defined]

Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

AIMS: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and RESULTS: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0 and 18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection December 2009 and October 2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between March 2010 and October 2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs. 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51-3.67] vs. 4.05 [95% CI 3.53-4.63]; P = 0.016). Conclusion: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical trial registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362).

Type: Article
Title: Why are outcomes different for registry patients enrolled prospectively and retrospectively? Insights from the global anticoagulant registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF)
Location: England
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcx030
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcx030
Language: English
Additional information: This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions.
Keywords: Anticoagulation, Atrial fibrillation, Prospective, Registries, Retrospective
UCL classification: UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > VP Health
URI: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10065681
Downloads since deposit
10Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item