OBJECTIVES: To document the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the multiracial population of Malaysia, and to describe the clinical features and management of these patients.
SETTING: Busy city centre general hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, over a 1-month period.
SUBJECTS: One-thousand four hundred and thirty-five acute medical admissions, of whom 40 patients (2.8%) had AF.
RESULTS: Of 1435 acute medical admissions to Kuala Lumpur General Hospital over the 4-week study period, 40 had AF (21 male, 19 female; mean age 65 years). Of these, 18 were Malay, 16 Chinese and six Indian. Nineteen patients had previously known AF (seven with paroxysmal AF) and 21 were newly diagnosed cases. The principal associated medical conditions were ischaemic heart disease (42.5%), hypertension (40%) and heart failure (40%). Dyspnoea was the commonest presentation, whilst stroke was the cause of presentation in only two patients. Investigations were under-utilised, with chest X-ray and echocardiography in only 62.5% of patients and thyroid function checked in 15%. Only 16% of those with previously diagnosed AF were on warfarin, with a further three on aspirin. Anticoagulant therapy was started in 13.5% of patients previously not on warfarin, and aspirin in 8%. Records of contraindications to warfarin were unreliable, being identified in only 25%. For those with known AF, 58% were on digoxin. For new onset AF, digoxin was again the most common rate-limiting treatment, initiated in 38%, whilst five patients with new onset AF were commenced on amiodarone. DC cardioversion was not used in any of the patients with new onset AF.
CONCLUSION: Amongst acute medical admissions to a single centre in Malaysia the prevalence of AF was 2.8%. Consistent with previous similar surveys in mainly western (caucasian) populations, standard investigations in this Malaysian cohort were also inadequate and there was underuse of anticoagulation, medication for ventricular rate control and cardioversion to sinus rhythm.
METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted among general surgeons attending the annual Malaysian College of Surgeons meeting in 2002. A total of 110 questionnaires were distributed to specialist-grade general surgeons with varying subspecialty interests.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven (70%) surgeons returned the questionnaire. Of these, 43% were of the opinion that VTE was as common in Asian patients as in the West. Selective VTE prophylaxis was used by 99% in their practice. The indications for use, in order of frequency, were: previous VTE disease, risk grading, prolonged surgery, obesity, malignancy and age. Low molecular weight heparin was the most common type of prophylaxis used. VTE-related morbidity was reported by 44 surgeons (57%) over the past year, and 39% of these cases were fatal.
CONCLUSION: The high incidence of VTE-related complications indicates that the use of thromboprophylaxis is either insufficient or not matched to the level of risk. Updated guidelines on VTE prophylaxis should be used so that a standardized approach can ensure that patients receive adequate prophylaxis where indicated.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. The anticoagulant drugs included are UFH, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any combination of warfarin, UFH, LMWH and placebo in pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbooks for Systemic Reviews of Interventions for assessing the eligibility of studies identified by the search strategy. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in the review.We identified three potential studies; after assessing eligibility, we excluded all three as they did not meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. One study compared LMWH and UFH in pregnant women with previous thromboembolic events and, for most of these women, anticoagulants were used as thromboprophylaxis. There were only three women who had a thromboembolic event during the current pregnancy and it was unclear whether the anticoagulant was used as therapy or prophylaxis. We excluded one study because it included only women undergoing caesarean birth. The third study was not a randomised trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of anticoagulation for deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. Further studies are required.