The overall prevalence of AF was 1.09% and 0.97% when using a ‘formal approach’ and a ‘limited diagnosis approach’, respectively. The prevalence progressively increased by 2.46-fold from 0.50% in 2004 to 1.54% in 2015 when using a ‘formal approach’ (p for trend <0.001). The OAC rate was also calculated based on prevalence by the three different approaches.ĪF atrial fibrillation TIA, transient ischaemic attack MI, myocardial infarction PAD, peripheral artery disease.įigure 1A shows the annual prevalence of AF between 20. The annual incidence of AF was the number of incident AF divided by the number of Korean residents of that year. The incident AF of each year was calculated using an increase in the number of AF patients who claimed medical expenses as compared to the previous year. We calculated the annual prevalence of AF by the number of AF patients who claimed medical expenses in each year divided by the number of total Korean residents of that year. (3) In the ‘medical use approach’, we used the number of AF patients who claimed medical expenses by year without considering individual AF history and mortality. The other conditions were the same as in the ‘formal approach’. (2) In the ‘limited diagnosis approach’, we included patients with an AF diagnosis within 5 main diagnosis fields during whole follow up period. Supplementary Table S2 shows the number and distribution of total Korean residents aged ≥20 years. The annual incidence of AF was the number of incident cases of AF divided by the number of person-years at risk among all Korean residents of that year who had never been diagnosed as AF. The annual prevalence of AF was calculated by dividing the number of AF patients of each year with exception for AF patients who died in previous year by the number of total Korean residents of that year. (1) In the ‘formal approach’, we considered individual AF diagnosis history and mortality. We evaluated three different methodological approaches to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of AF ‘formal approach’, ‘limited diagnosis approach’, and ‘medical use approach’. Given the wide variability in prevalence and incidence figures with different analysis approaches, careful attention to the analysis methodology is needed. OAC rate in 2015 was 2.1 times higher when using a ‘medical use approach’ compared to using a ‘formal approach’ (40.3% vs. The trend of annual AF incidence was stable when using a ‘formal approach’, but increased by 15% when using a ‘medical use approach’. Overall prevalence decreased to 0.52% with a ‘medical use approach’. The overall prevalence was 1.09% and 0.97% when using a ‘formal approach’ and ‘limited diagnosis approaches’, respectively. The AF prevalence progressively increased by 2.46-fold from 0.50% in 2004 to 1.54% in 2015 when using a ‘formal approach’ (p for trend <0.001). Using the National Health Insurance Service database of Korea, the prevalence and incidence of AF, and oral anticoagulation (OAC) use of AF patients were explored according to three different approaches ‘formal approach’, considering individual AF diagnosis and mortality ‘limited diagnosis approach’, using upper 5 main diagnosis and ‘medical use approach’, using the number of medical use AF population by year without considering individual AF history and mortality. The reported incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been inconsistent across published studies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |