TY - JOUR
T1 - The interpretation of CHA2DS2-VASc score components in clinical practice
T2 - a joint survey by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, the EHRA Young Electrophysiologists, the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals, and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke
AU - Zhang, Juqian
AU - Lenarczyk, Radoslaw
AU - Marin, Francisco
AU - Malaczynska-Rajpold, Katarzyna
AU - Kosiuk, Jedrzej
AU - Doehner, Wolfram
AU - Van Gelder, Isabelle C.
AU - Lee, Geraldine
AU - Hendriks, Jeroen M.
AU - Lip, Gregory Y.H.
AU - Potpara, Tatjana S.
N1 - Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
PY - 2021/2/5
Y1 - 2021/2/5
N2 - This European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, EHRA Young Electrophysiologists, Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Council on Stroke joint survey aimed to assess the interpretation of the CHA2DS2-VASc score components and preferred resources for calculating the score. Of 439 respondents, most were general cardiologists (46.7%) or electrophysiologists (EPs) (42.1%). The overall adherence to the ESC-defined scoring criteria was good. Most variation was observed in the interpretation of the significance of left ventricular ejection fraction and brain natriuretic peptide in the scoring for the 'C' component, as well as the 'one-off high reading of blood pressure' to score on the 'H' component. Greater confidence was expressed in scoring the 'H' component (72.3%) compared with the 'C' (46.2%) and 'V' (45.9%) components. Respondents mainly relied on their recall for the scoring of CHA2DS2-VASc score (64.2%). The three most favoured referencing resources varied among different professionals, with pharmacists and physicians relying mainly on memory or web/mobile app, whereas nurses favoured using a web/mobile app followed by memory or guidelines/protocol. In conclusion, this survey revealed overall good adherence to the correct definition of each component in scoring of the 'C', 'H', and 'V' elements of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, although the variation in their interpretations warrants further clarifications. The preferred referencing resources to calculate the score varied among different healthcare professionals. Guideline education to healthcare professionals and updated and unified online/mobile scoring tools are suggested to improve the accuracy in scoring the CHA2DS2-VASc score.
AB - This European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, EHRA Young Electrophysiologists, Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Council on Stroke joint survey aimed to assess the interpretation of the CHA2DS2-VASc score components and preferred resources for calculating the score. Of 439 respondents, most were general cardiologists (46.7%) or electrophysiologists (EPs) (42.1%). The overall adherence to the ESC-defined scoring criteria was good. Most variation was observed in the interpretation of the significance of left ventricular ejection fraction and brain natriuretic peptide in the scoring for the 'C' component, as well as the 'one-off high reading of blood pressure' to score on the 'H' component. Greater confidence was expressed in scoring the 'H' component (72.3%) compared with the 'C' (46.2%) and 'V' (45.9%) components. Respondents mainly relied on their recall for the scoring of CHA2DS2-VASc score (64.2%). The three most favoured referencing resources varied among different professionals, with pharmacists and physicians relying mainly on memory or web/mobile app, whereas nurses favoured using a web/mobile app followed by memory or guidelines/protocol. In conclusion, this survey revealed overall good adherence to the correct definition of each component in scoring of the 'C', 'H', and 'V' elements of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, although the variation in their interpretations warrants further clarifications. The preferred referencing resources to calculate the score varied among different healthcare professionals. Guideline education to healthcare professionals and updated and unified online/mobile scoring tools are suggested to improve the accuracy in scoring the CHA2DS2-VASc score.
KW - Atrial fibrillation
KW - Knowledge gap
KW - Referencing resources
KW - Stroke risk stratification
KW - Survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101014883&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/europace/euaa358
DO - 10.1093/europace/euaa358
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 33554259
AN - SCOPUS:85101014883
SN - 1099-5129
VL - 23
SP - 314
EP - 322
JO - Europace
JF - Europace
IS - 2
ER -