Abstract

With the publication of the 2014 Focused Update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines Committee has introduced a new triage and management algorithm, the so-called “CCS Algorithm”. The CCS Algorithm is based upon expert opinion of the best available evidence, however, the CCS Algorithm has not yet been validated. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of the CCS Algorithm in a cohort of real world patients. We compared the CCS Algorithm with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Algorithm in 172 hospital inpatients who are at risk of stroke due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation in whom anticoagulant therapy was being considered. The CCS Algorithm and the ESC Algorithm were concordant in 170/172 patients (99% of the time). There were two patients (1%) with vascular disease, but no other thromboembolic risk factors, which were classified as requiring oral anticoagulant therapy using the ESC Algorithm, but for whom ASA was recommended by the CCS Algorithm. The CCS Algorithm appears to be unnecessarily complicated in so far as it does not appear to provide any additional discriminatory value above and beyond the use of the ESC Algorithm, and its use could result in under treatment of patients, specifically female patients with vascular disease, whose real risk of stroke has been understated by the Guidelines.