Non-interventional Study Describing Patients' Perception on Anticoagulant Treatment and Treatment Convenience When Treated With Pradaxa or Vitamin K Antagonist for Stroke Prophylaxis in Atrial Fibrillation.

Mean PACT-Q2 Scores, for Patients in Cohort B, at Last Assessment Compared Between Treatment Groups

时间窗: Last assessment - Visit 3 (125-365 days after initiation on Pradaxa or VKA)

Mean PACT-Q2 scores, for patients in cohort B, at last assessment compared between treatment groups. Convenience dimension score and satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 both range from 0 to 100 with high scores indicate better outcome. Mean PACT-Q2 scores, for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the last assessment. The mean convenience and satisfaction scores of PACT-Q2 were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients. Pradaxa® and VKA patients were matched based on propensity scores using a variable ratio, parallel, balanced 2:1, nearest neighbour matching algorithm with a caliper width of 0.05 and without replacement.

Patient Characterization at Baseline - Categorical Parameters

时间窗: Baseline (Visit1)

Categorical parameters of the patient characteristics at baseline included age, gender, Stroke- and/or bleeding related risk factors in medical history (MH), co-morbidities (CoMo), concomitant therapies (CM) and dosing of Pradaxa® (DoP).

Patient Characteristics at Baseline - Duration of Previous VKA Treatment for Cohort A

时间窗: Baseline (Visit1)

Duration of continuous VKA treatment for stroke prevention prior to baseline assessment (Cohort A)

Mean Perception of Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire, Part 2 (PACT-Q2) Scores, for Patients in Cohort A, at Second Assessment Compared to Baseline Assessment

时间窗: Visit 1 (Baseline) and second assessment Visit 2 (7-124 days after initiation on Pradaxa or VKA)

Mean Perception of Anticoagulant treatment Questionnaire, part 2 (PACT-Q2) scores, for patients in cohort A, at second assessment compared to baseline assessment. The PACT-Q2 is composed of 3 dimensions covering: convenience (11 items), burden of disease \& treatment (2 items), \& anticoagulant treatment satisfaction (7 items). In this outcome the mean convenience \& satisfaction dimension scores of PACT-Q2 at second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with baseline assessment (Visit 1). Within the PACT-Q2, items for convenience \& for burden of disease and treatment were reversed (reversed score = 6 - item score), added together \& rescaled on a 0-100 scale to obtain the convenience dimension score. Items for anticoagulant treatment satisfaction were summed \& rescaled on 0-100 scale to determine satisfaction score. High scores are more favorable. PACT-Q2 which were completed more than 1 day after discontinuation of treatment or using incorrect procedure were excluded from analysis.

Mean PACT-Q2 Scores, for Patients in Cohort A, at Last Assessment Compared to Baseline Assessment

时间窗: Visit 1 (Baseline) and last assessment Visit 3 (125-365 days after initiation on Pradaxa or VKA)

Mean PACT-Q2 scores, for patients in cohort A, at last assessment compared to baseline assessment. The mean convenience and satisfaction dimension scores of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). Within the PACT-Q2, items for convenience and for burden of disease and treatment were reversed (reversed score = 6 - item score), added together and rescaled on a 0-100 scale to obtain the convenience dimension score. Items for anticoagulant treatment satisfaction were summed and rescaled on a 0-100 scale to determine the satisfaction score. High scores are more favorable. PACT-Q2 which were completed more than 1 day after discontinuation of treatment or using incorrect procedure were excluded from the analysis.

Mean PACT-Q2 Scores, for Patients in Cohort B, at Second Assessment Compared Between Treatment Groups

时间窗: Second assessment Visit 2 (7-124 days after initiation on Pradaxa or VKA)

Mean PACT-Q2 scores, for patients in cohort B, at second assessment compared between treatment groups. Convenience dimension score and satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 both range from 0 to 100 with high scores indicate better outcome. Mean PACT-Q2 scores, for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. The mean convenience and satisfaction scores of PACT-Q2 were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients. Pradaxa® and VKA patients were matched based on propensity scores using a variable ratio, parallel, balanced 2:1, nearest neighbour matching algorithm with a caliper width of 0.05 and without replacement. PACT-Q2 which were completed more than 1 day after discontinuation of treatment or using incorrect procedure were excluded from the analysis.