In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

Emergency department challenges in initiating and maintaining anticoagulant therapy in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation

Treating elderly patients with atrial fibrillation in the emergency department (ED) is challenging. Decreased renal function, the presence of comorbidities and polypharmacy together with particular pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics influence the safety and efficacy of an anticoagulant. The perception of increased bleeding susceptibility may prevent some physicians from prescribing anticoagulants, which exposes the elderly patient to a high risk of thromboembolic events. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) guideline recommendations are reflected in current practice; however, adherence is still far from optimal and inappropriate use of antiplatelet medications are frequently encountered in elderly patients. Current evidence has demonstrated that NOACs should be the preferred choice in the geriatric population.

Arrhythmias, General
Atrial Fibrillation


Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the leading arrhythmia encountered in elderly patients, due to their increased survival rate [1].

The prevalence of AF is approximately 10% in patients ≥80 years old, but the impact of population aging on rates of AF-related ischaemic events is uncertain [2].

Treating older patients with AF is challenging due to their comorbidities, polypharmacy and peculiar pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; therefore, it is important to monitor the management of these patients. This is even more critical in the emergency department (ED) where, under the pressure of time, where it is imperative to initiate anticoagulation or to insist on its being maintained. When assessing the elderly patient presenting to the ED, we have to consider the patient with AF in a holistic manner, i.e., the role of AF as a marker of aggravation or as a risk factor for aggravation should be evaluated together with other chronic or acute conditions contributing to the patient’s state.

One of the challenging problems confronting the physician in relation to AF patients in the ED is the decision on whether there is a need for acute or delayed treatment.

Stroke prevention, through oral anticoagulants (OAC), represents the cornerstone of managing AF patients, as indicated by the guidelines [3] and proven by numerous observational studies [4,5]. However, real-world data emphasise that the prescription rate of OAC is inversely related to age [6,7].

Patients with AF who are older than 80 years of age represent a special population with an estimated prevalence of 10% reported in different trials [8-10]. These patients are often excluded from clinical trials and the option of therapeutic management in this distinct group is often based entirely on expert consensus [11], on available information from real-world registries or on individual physician decision. Therapeutic options should be chosen in this frail population taking into consideration safety before efficacy of the administered drug [1].

Elderly patients with AF presenting to the ED and their challenges

Symptomatic AF relapses compel patients to refer themselves to the ED. This is the main cause of hospital readmission for arrhythmic reasons and represents a common issue encountered by physicians in daily practice. Notably, the relapse rate after the first episode of AF is about 10% in the first 12 months and 5% in the following years [12].

In the elderly group, age per se represents a proven risk factor included in the CHA2DS2-VASC score, but common practice shows us that OAC prescription is dreaded among this group. A routine practice among medical doctors is antiplatelet prescription if the patient has a higher HAS-BLED score. Recent data highlight the increased protective effect against stroke of NOACs over aspirin in patients ≥75 years of age [13].

An increased risk of falls in the geriatric population is reported. Assessment of the risk of falls is fundamental considering the burden that falls impose on patients and family members. In this targeted population, falls are more likely to have multiple causes: drugs, activity, environment, behaviour. Falls usually lead to life-threatening haematomas. The risk of falls is increased in the elderly with OAC use. Because of this, elderly patients prone to risk are undertreated. However, the risk of falls never equals the risk of stroke [14].

The majority of patients over 65 years old take at least five or more drugs. This polypharmacy contributes to inappropriate use, diminished adherence, unanticipated drug interactions, and cumulative side effects. Multiple drug prescription in the senescent population is associated with frequent outpatient visits and hospitalisations, increased burden on the healthcare system, and contributes to the decline of functional and mental status [15]. The increased risk of non-adherence leads to treatment cessation and progression of the disease [16]. When prescribing drugs, especially to elderly patients who most of the time are frail, one always has to take into consideration the risk/benefit ratio.

Management of the geriatric population in the ED

ED physicians have to rapidly and properly asses and manage these patients by addressing rate or rhythm control. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended for the benefit of the patient. The acute treatment started in the ED is usually the only one that the patient receives and will probably affect the long-term outcome of the underlying condition and the patient’s subsequent hospital readmission rate. Medication prescribed in the ED is sometimes continued after discharge at the patient’s own initiative without proper indication. Although the therapeutic options were appropriately addressed in the ED, most of them should be replaced at discharge. Early rectification of inappropriate medication intake may improve geriatric care. A suitable drug evaluation should be performed by a multidisciplinary team, or at least by the patient’s own physician [12].

Should the chosen treatment be administered at once or can it be delayed?

The initial assessment particularly involves risk stratification. This is established by an appropriate balance of the stroke risk, evaluated by the CHA2DS2-VASc score, and bleeding risk, estimated through the HAS-BLED score. However, the decision concerning treatment should always take into consideration the stroke versus bleeding risk. Under no circumstances should a hasty decision be made. It should therefore be reserved for the moment of optimal evaluation.

Although the ESC position paper on bleeding risk and AF management asserts that “bleeding risk is almost inevitably lower than stroke in patients with AF”, it could  be further reduced by re-evaluating antithrombotic therapeutic strategies in high-risk patients [3,11].

In order to maintain the balance between risk stratification and optimal therapeutic management, the initial assessment must be thorough, reliable and accurate. Fear of haemorrhages can lead to the wrong decision: OAC therapy is often avoided, delayed or replaced by antiplatelet therapy [7].

An individual approach is the keystone of treatment

Despite the pressure on the ED and the importance of making an immediate decision, rushing to make a patient assessment should be avoided. The patient should benefit from a shared decision taking into account the benefits and risks of the treatment.

Assessment of comorbidities and drug adherence thereafter should be implemented by practitioners. Patient adherence to medication has always been a challenge. Drug non-adherence can be influenced by factors related to the patient, medication, healthcare provider and socioeconomics [17].

When managing an elderly patient with AF, the physician has to consider not only preventing thromboembolic episodes, but also improving the patient’s clinical status by reducing their symptoms. This contributes to reduction in mortality and hospitalisation and an improved quality of life. Anticoagulant therapy reduces thromboembolic events while rhythm or rate control help to alleviate patients’ clinical discomfort. Catheter ablation has established its role in AF treatment.

Elderly patients with AF should be anticoagulated, unless a contraindication is present. Classic oral anticoagulants such as vitamin K antagonists (VKA) have many known drawbacks (establishing the right dose through international normalised ratio [INR] values performed periodically, food interactions, etc.).

NOACs have opened new options among the elderly. Available NOACs used in daily clinical practice include dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor) and rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban (direct factor Xa inhibitors).

In low-risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc= 0), an overuse of OAC was reported, that could be explained by cardioversion (either performed during the index hospitalisation or planned immediately after discharge). Current guidelines recommend at least four weeks of oral anticoagulation after cardioversion, irrespective of the CHA2DS2-VASc score and of the type of cardioversion (pharmacological or electrical). Unfortunately, in daily practice, there are reasons, such as “unsuitable” patients, first detected/paroxysmal AF or a previous haemorrhagic event, often encountered for not prescribing OAC [18].

In the ED, when assessing an elderly AF patient treated with OAC, a thorough medical history is essential to appreciate which OAC is being taken, the dose administered, and the last dose taken. The physician evaluating the elderly patient has to estimate the renal function (usually affected) which influences the OAC half-life, thus increasing the bleeding risk [11].

It is important to obtain information about the time of the last dose of OAC taken in order to know if and when the next dose should be administered, especially because OACs have a prolonged half-life in the elderly. In the case of a non-anticoagulated elderly AF patient, a dose of anticoagulant should be administered at once provided the patient does not have any contraindications (concomitant major haemorrhagic events, patient’s option).

Elderly patients on edoxaban have lower rates of stroke and other thromboembolic events, and more important bleeding events [8].

Taking into account all of the above-mentioned particularities, a suitable management when treating very old patients with AF in the ED is the individual approach. This should be an evidence-based decision in accordance with the ESC 2016 guidelines concerning the treatment of old patients with AF, strategies for the management of geriatric patients and individualised clinical pharmacology of administered drugs [3].

Numerous debates have challenged whether or not to administer oral anticoagulants to elderly AF patients as the first therapeutic choice. The use of OAC is suboptimal in elderly subjects despite their higher CHA2DS2-VASc score.

Among patients with AF over 90 years of age, warfarin was associated with a lower risk of ischaemic stroke and a net clinical benefit [19]. Compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a lower risk of intracranial haemorrhages. Thus, OAC may still be considered as thromboprophylaxis for elderly patients, with NOACs, however, being the more favourable choice [3,11].

A large proportion of this population receives a prescription of a reduced dose of NOACs (the reason lies in the fear of bleeding). Thus, a more fragile patient is outlined. Inappropriate dosing of NOACs has become a common practice among practitioners, despite clear guideline recommendations [3]. In order to take preventive measures, to reduce the risk of bleeding, physicians choose to prescribe lower NOAC dosage (especially true for apixaban), resulting in a decreased efficacy [8].

However, some NOACs preserve efficacy at lower dosages (especially convenient in the very elderly). Dabigatran should be reduced in elderly patients, in contrast with rivaroxaban or edoxaban, where no dose adjustment is required. Apixaban dose adjustment depends on the indications and further criteria. Recent data indicate that an inappropriate dose reduction of NOACs is associated with lower thromboembolic event prevention [20].

Despite the best efforts of guideline experts and evidence-based recommendations founded on demonstrated efficacy, many AF patients who meet the criteria for anticoagulant therapy are not treated correctly. Low rates of compliance and treatment adherence were reported in middle- and low-income countries.

There are several reasons why the elderly are not compliant with their prescribed therapy. They often have multiple comorbid conditions and have to use more drugs than their younger counterparts [15].

Identifying the best approach between adherence to the current recommendations of the guidelines to treat patients with AF and pharmacotherapy in the elderly is not as easy as it may seem. A suitable approach could be to apply the principles of personalised medical treatment, towards clinical and pharmacological assessments of all the therapeutic agents used and their interactions (drug and food interactions) [17].

Rate control is the preferred therapeutic approach. Different registries and clinical trials suggest that the general management strategy for elderly patients is a rate control approach, which may be associated with reduced mortality and hospitalisations, compared with a rhythm-control approach [1,21].

The thromboembolic event rates are similar in patients treated with pharmacological rhythm control strategies versus rate control therapies, as proven by important trials [21].

An integrated age-related management of patients presenting to the ED, with a preferred choice of rate control in elderly subjects, is however suggested by some studies [13].

This was confirmed by the investigators of the ATRIA study which showed that the clinical benefit of warfarin increases with older age, reaching a maximum benefit in patients ≥85 years old [5]. The fear of haemorrhages, although trivial and improperly attributed to OAC in this population, may be unfounded. Some trials indicate that antiplatelet agents are not fully benign in octogenarians in whom aspirin caused more adverse events than warfarin [3,5,20]. Underprescription of NOACs is presented in studies that outline that old age is a negative predictor in terms of guideline adherence [17]. In elderly patients with AF, OAC underprescription is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, thromboembolism and major bleeding [16,20].

The presence of adverse side effects must be taken into consideration when administering a drug. Due to antithrombotic drug consumption, rhythm and rate control pills prescribed, the underlying disease management and presence of comorbidities, the AF patient presenting in the ED can be a “ticking bomb”. The efficacy of guideline-recommended strategies remains uncertain due to this population being under-represented in clinical trials [1].

NOACs should be the preferred choice rather than aspirin or other antiplatelet agents in elderly patients, but this must be supported by warranted, randomised clinical trials and real-world registries with this targeted population.


In summary, when treating an old patient with AF one should remember “we, as good doctors, treat the patient not the disease”.

A better awareness of the risk/benefit balance, the implementation of risk stratification criteria with a correct evaluation of bleeding risk could improve NOAC prescription and help the evaluating doctor to make a more suitable and timely decision of the appropriate drug to be administered.

Due to increased life expectancy, the senescent population constitutes a significant percentage of our ED patients. Thus, efforts should be made in order to redefine the appropriate anticoagulant therapy.

In the ED, in case of a non-anticoagulated patient, a dose of anticoagulant should be administered at once.


  1. Proietti M, Romiti GF, Olshansky B, Lane DA, Lip GYH. Improved Outcomes by Integrated Care of Anticoagulated Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Using the Simple ABC (Atrial Fibrillation Better Care) Pathway. Am J Med. 2018;131:1359-66.  
  2. Rahman F, Kwan GF, Benjamin EJ. Global epidemiology of atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014;11:639-54. 
  3. Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, Ahlsson A, Atar D, Casadei B, Castella M, Diener HC, Heidbuchel H, Hendriks J, Hindricks G, Manolis AS, Oldgren J, Popescu BA, Schotten U, Van Putte B, Vardas P; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2893-962. 
  4. Nieuwlaat R, Capucci A, Camm AJ, Olsson SB, Andresen D, Davies DW, Cobbe S, Breithardt G, Le Heuzey JY, Prins MH, Lévy S, Crijns HJ; European Heart Survey Investigators. Atrial fibrillation management: a prospective survey in ESC Member Countries: The Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2422-34. 
  5. Go AS, Hylek EM, Phillips KA, Chang Y, Henault LE, Selby JV, Singer DE.  Prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation in adults: national implications for rhythm management and stroke prevention: the AnTicoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study. JAMA. 2001;285:2370-5. 
  6. Steinberg BA, Shrader P, Pieper K, Thomas L, Allen LA, Ansell J, Chan PS, Ezekowitz MD, Fonarow GC, Freeman JV, Gersh BJ, Kowey PR, Mahaffey KW, Naccarelli GV, Reiffel JA, Singer DE, Peterson ED, Piccini JP; Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT‐AF) II Investigators.  Frequency and Outcomes of Reduced Dose Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Anticoagulants: Results From ORBIT‐AF II (The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II). J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e007633. 
  7. Boriani G, Proietti M, Laroche C, Fauchier L, Marin F, Nabauer M, Potpara T, Dan GA, Kalarus Z, Diemberger I, Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Lip GYH; EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry Investigators; Steering Committee (National Coordinators). Contemporary stroke prevention strategies in 11 096 European patients with atrial fibrillation: a report from the EURObservational Research Programme on Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) Long-Term General Registry. Europace. 2018;20:747-57. 
  8. Turagam MK, Velagapudi P, Flaker GC. Stroke prevention in the elderly atrial fibrillation patient with comorbid conditions: focus on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:1431-44. 
  9. Halvorsen S, Atar D, Yang H, De Caterina R, Erol C, Garcia D, Granger CB, Hanna M, Held C, Husted S, Hylek EM, Jansky P, Lopes RD, Ruzyllo W, Thomas L, Wallentin L. Efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin according to age for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: observations from the ARISTOTLE trial. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:1864-72.  
  10. Halperin JL, Hankey GJ, Wojdyla DM, Piccini JP, Lokhnygina Y, Patel MR, Breithardt G, Singer DE, Becker RC, Hacke W, Paolini JF, Nessel CC, Mahaffey KW, Califf RM, Fox KA; ROCKET AF Steering Committee and Investigators. Efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF). Circulation. 2014;130:138-46. 
  11. Steffel J, Verhamme P, Potpara TS, Albaladejo P, Antz M, Desteghe L, Haeusler KG, Oldgren J, Reinecke H, Roldan-Schilling V, Rowell N, Sinnaeve P, Collins R, Camm AJ, Heidbüchel H; ESC Scientific Document Group. The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary. Europace. 2019;20:1231-42. 
  12. Bonora A, Turcato G, Franchi E, Dilda A, Taioli G, Serafini V, Silvero V, Zannoni M, Ricci G, Olivieri O. Emergency Department Readmission in Elderly Patients After Acute Rhythm or Rate Control Treatment for Atrial Fibrillation. J Atr Fibrillation. 2016;9:1387. 
  13. Pugh D, Pugh J, Mead GE. Attitudes of physicians regarding anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2011;40:675-83. 
  14. Man-Son-Hing M, Nichol G, Lau A, Laupacis A. Choosing antithrombotic therapy for elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who are at risk for falls. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:6770-85. 
  15. Guidet B, Vallet H, Boddaert J, de Lange DW, Morandi A, Leblanc G, Artigas A, Flaatten H. Caring for the critically ill patients over 80: a narrative review. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8:114. 
  16. Misha’l Aly A. Drug Prescribing to the Elderly Patients. International Journal of Human and Health Sciences. 2017;01:65-9. 
  17. Yap AF, Thirumoorthy T, Kwan YH. Medication adherence in the elderly. Journal of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2016;7:64-7. 
  18. Gulizia MM, Cemin R, Colivicchi F, De Luca L, Di Lenarda A, Boriani G, Di Pasquale G, Nardi F, Scherillo M, Lucci D, Fabbri G, Maggioni AP; BLITZ-AF Investigators. Management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency room and in the cardiology ward: the BLITZ AF study. Europace. 2019;21:230-9.  
  19. Chao TF, Liu CJ, Lin YJ, Chang SL, Lo LW, Hu YF, Tuan TC, Liao JN, Chung FP, Chen TJ, Lip GYH, Chen SA. Oral Anticoagulation in Very Elderly Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Circulation. 2018;138:37-47. 
  20.  Patti G, Mantione L, Bressi E, Bisignani A. Efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulant therapy in frail patients with atrial fibrillation. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2018;88:958. 
  21. Shariff N, Desai RV, Patel K, Ahmed MI, Fonarow GC, Rich MW, Aban IB, Banach M, Love TE, White M, Aronow WS, Epstein AE, Ahmed A. Rate-control versus rhythm-control strategies and outcomes in septuagenarians with atrial fibrillation. Am J Med. 2013;126:887-93. 

Notes to editor


Otilia Țica1,2, MD, PhD; Ovidiu Țica3,4, MD, PhD; Raluca Popescu5, MD, PhD; Mircea Ioachim Popescu1,2, MD, PhD; Gheorghe Andrei Dan5, MD, PhD, EC, FESC, FAHA, FACC, FEHRA

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy Oradea, University of Oradea, Medical Department; Oradea, Romania;
  2. Emergency County Clinical Hospital of Oradea, Cardiology Clinic, Oradea, Romania;
  3. Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy Oradea, University of Oradea, Hystology Department, Oradea, Romania;
  4. Emergency County Clinical Hospital of Oradea, Pathology Department, Oradea, Romania;
  5. University of Medicine, 'Carol Davila', Colentina University Hospital, Bucharest, Romania


Address for correspondence:

Assist Prof. Dr Ovidiu Țica, Oradea, Anatole France street, no 70, 410482, Romania.



Author disclosures:

Prof. Gheorghe Andrei Dan reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, and Servier, outside the submitted work.

The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.




The content of this article reflects the personal opinion of the author/s and is not necessarily the official position of the European Society of Cardiology.