Electronic Alerts for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter (AF-ALERT)

October 29, 2018 updated by: Samuel Z.Goldhaber, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital

Alert-Based Computerized Decision Support for Stroke Prevention in High-Risk Hospitalized Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized, Controlled Trial (AF-ALERT)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most preventable cause of stroke. CHADS and CHA2DS2VASc scores predict the likelihood of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF. Atrial flutter confers a similar risk of stroke as atrial fibrillation. Anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban is effective for prevention of thromboembolic stroke in most patients with AF. However, despite widely available risk stratification tools, five options for anticoagulation, and evidence-based practice guidelines, thromboprophylaxis for stroke prevention in AF is under-prescribed in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide. The investigators have previously demonstrated the efficacy of an alert-based computerized decision support (CDS) strategy for prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) in at-risk hospitalized patients not receiving any thromboprophylaxis. The investigators' goal is to create and evaluate an alert-based CDS strategy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF or atrial flutter in a randomized controlled trial.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most preventable cause of stroke. CHADS and CHA2DS2VASc scores predict the likelihood of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF. Atrial flutter confers a similar risk of stroke as atrial fibrillation. Anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban is effective for prevention of thromboembolic stroke in most patients with AF. However, despite widely available risk stratification tools, five options for anticoagulation, and evidence-based practice guidelines, thromboprophylaxis for stroke prevention in AF is under-prescribed in the U.S., Europe, and worldwide. The investigators have previously demonstrated the efficacy of an alert-based computerized decision support (CDS) strategy for prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) in at-risk hospitalized patients not receiving any thromboprophylaxis. The investigators' goal is to create and evaluate an alert-based CDS strategy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF or atrial flutter in a randomized controlled trial. The investigators have the following specific aims:

Aim #1 (Primary Efficacy Endpoint)- To assess whether an alert-based computerized decision support strategy increases prescription of anticoagulation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days from enrollment.

Hypothesis #1- An alert-based computer decision support (CDS) strategy will increase prescription of prescription of anticoagulation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days from enrollment.

Aim #2 (Secondary Efficacy Endpoint)- To determine the potential impact of an alert-based computerized decision support strategy on the frequency of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events at 90 days, defined as cerebrovascular accident, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality at 90 days from enrollment.

Hypothesis #2- This study will provide proof-of-concept data, including event rates, from which to design a larger randomized control trial to assess whether an alert-based CDS strategy will reduce the frequency of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events at 90 days, defined as cerebrovascular accident, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality at 90 days from enrollment.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

458

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Massachusetts
      • Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02115
        • Brigham and Women's Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

21 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • High-risk patients ≥ 21 years old with paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent nonvalvular AF or atrial flutter (CHA2DS2VASc score ≥ 1) who are not prescribed anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention and are hospitalized at BWH will be eligible for randomization.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • <21 years old
  • no diagnosis of AF or atrial flutter
  • not hospitalized at BWH

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Alert Group
If the patient is randomized to the alert group, their ordering provider will receive a computer electronic alert notifying the responsible provider that his or her patient is high-risk for stroke due to AF or atrial flutter and that the patient is not ordered to receive anticoagulant therapy.
A computer program that will issue an on-screen electronic alert notifying the responsible provider that his or her patient is high-risk for stroke due to AF or atrial flutter and that the patient is not ordered to receive anticoagulant therapy. The alert will provide options for anticoagulation for stroke prevention in AF as well as additional information in the form of suggested reading.
No Intervention: Control Group
If the patient is randomized to the control group, the computer program will not issue an on-screen electronic alert.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Frequency of prescription of anticoagulation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days from enrollment.
Time Frame: 90 days
Defined as prescription of therapeutic dose anticoagulation
90 days

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Frequency of composite of major adverse cardiovascular events at 90 days
Time Frame: 90 days
Defined as cerebrovascular accident, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality at 90 days from enrollment
90 days
Frequency of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) at 90 days
Time Frame: 90 days
An acute stroke was defined as a new, focal neurologic deficit of sudden onset, lasting at least 24 hours, not due to a readily identifiable nonvascular cause (e.g., brain tumor, trauma), as confirmed by a neurologist. All strokes required confirmation by imaging or autopsy. TIA was defined as a transient episode of neurologic dysfunction caused by suspected focal cerebral, spinal cord, or retinal ischemia without evidence of acute infarction and confirmed by a neurologist.
90 days
Frequency of acute myocardial infarction at 90 days
Time Frame: 90 days
Acute MI was defined as the detection of a rise and/or fall of cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin T), with at least one value being elevated above the 99th percentile upper reference limit and with at least one of the following: 1) symptoms of myocardial ischemia; 2) new (or presumably new) significant ST-segment/T-wave changes or left bundle branch block; 3) development of pathological Q waves on ECG; 4) new loss of viable myocardium or regional wall motion abnormality by imaging; or 5) identification of intracoronary thrombus by angiography or autopsy.
90 days
Frequency of all cause mortality at 90 days
Time Frame: 90 days
All-cause mortality was determined by review of the EHR. Causes of death were classified as stroke, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, other cardiovascular cause, bleeding, cancer, or non-cardiovascular and non-cancer.
90 days
Frequency of major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding at 90 days
Time Frame: 90 days
Defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH] bleeding classification system) at 90 days from enrollment.14 Using the ISTH classification, bleeding was defined as major if it was overt and associated with a decrease in the hemoglobin level of 2 g/dL or more, required the transfusion of 2 or more units of blood, occurred into a critical site, or contributed to death. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was defined as overt bleeding not meeting the criteria for major bleeding but associated with medical intervention, surgical intervention, or interruption of the study drug.
90 days
Frequency of systemic embolism at 90 days
Time Frame: 90 days
Systemic embolism was defined as sudden loss of perfusion of a limb or extracranial organ
90 days

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Collaborators

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Samuel Z Goldhaber, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

May 1, 2016

Primary Completion (Actual)

February 1, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

September 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 6, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 12, 2015

First Posted (Estimate)

January 15, 2015

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

October 31, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 29, 2018

Last Verified

October 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe