Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

The health care setting rather than medical speciality impacts on physicians adherence to guideline-conform anticoagulation in outpatients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cross sectional survey

Bernhard Gerber1*, Georg Stussi2, Thomas Rosemann3 and Oliver Senn4

Author Affiliations

1 Clinic of Haematology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zuerich, Switzerland

2 Division of Haematology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland (IOSI), Via Ospedale, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland

3 Institute for General Practice and Health Services Research, University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, 8091 Zuerich, Switzerland

4 Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research, University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, 8091 Zuerich, Switzerland

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2012, 12:12  doi:10.1186/1471-2261-12-12

Published: 29 February 2012



In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at high risk for stroke guidelines consistently recommend long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) with a vitamin K antagonist. However recommendations remain ambiguous in respect to the precise OAC initiation regimens. Based on the clinical observation, that the initiation of OAC for NVAF varies considerably in daily practice, we aimed to assess the current practice in Switzerland.


Cross-sectional survey of randomly selected general practitioners, internists and cardiologists from different health care settings in an urban Swiss region that covers 1.4 million inhabitants. The main outcome measures were the preferred antithrombotic initiation regimen and long-term treatment in patients with newly diagnosed NVAF at high risk for stroke.


We received 226 out of 388 (58.2%) surveys. Compared to physicians working in a hospital setting (33.6% of respondents) physicians in ambulatory care reported more years of experience and claimed lower-use (never or seldom) of guidelines in general (47.6 vs. 12.2%). Regarding long-term thromboembolic prophylaxis 93.7% of all responders followed current recommendation by choosing an OAC. When focussing on guideline-consistent correct OAC initiation (either low-dose initial OAC or a combination of LMWH and OAC) adherence dropped to 60.6% with hospital physicians demonstrating a significantly higher use of guideline-conform OAC regimens (79.7 vs. 51.0%). Medical speciality in non-hospital physicians was not related to correct guideline-use. Hospital setting remained independently associated with a guideline-conform OAC initiation regimen (OR 2.8, p = 0.023) when controlled for medical speciality, physicians' characteristics and clinical experience. Problems when starting an anticoagulation treatment were seldom reported (never or seldom accounting for 94.1% of all responses).


The guideline adherence with respect to OAC initiation regimens in NVAF was significantly lower when compared to long-term treatment and health care setting rather than medical speciality explained guideline-conform OAC initiation. The majority of the physicians did not consider the initiation of anticoagulation to be a major obstacle in outpatient care.