Project description:IntroductionBoth the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its subsequent use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are rapidly increasing in patients of older age. In the absence of contra-indications, guidelines advocate anticoagulation based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score for all AF patients aged 75 and above. However, some practitioners are hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants to older and frail patients due to perceived elevated bleeding risks. This review delves into the comparative treatment outcomes of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in older patients with AF, particularly focusing on those of advanced age, frailty, increased risk of falling, chronic kidney disease (CKD), or with a history of major bleeding. Additionally, considerations on the use of off-label DOAC doses, the role of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure and future developments in factor XIa-inhibitors will be discussed.ResultsWhile strong evidence supports the use of DOACs in the vital older patients with nonvalvular AF, it remains scant in frail patient groups. There is some evidence from non-randomized studies suggesting that the effect of DOACs compared with VKAs is consistent between frail and nonfrail patients. However, recent findings from a single randomized trial showed increased bleeding risks but comparable thromboembolic outcomes in frail individuals switching from VKAs to DOACs. In patients with an increased risk of falling, data suggest no relevant interaction of increased risk of falling on the effectiveness and safety of DOACs compared with warfarin. Resuming oral anticoagulants in patients with Af after major bleeding seems to be beneficial. Off-label low-dose DOAC is often prescribed to patients who were underrepresented in larger randomized trails because of an elevated risk of bleeding or overexposure to DOACs, but its effect on clinical outcomes remains uncertain.ConclusionsDOACs are the recommended oral anticoagulant for vital older patients with AF. The scarcity of data backing DOAC use in frail individuals, those with renal impairments, or significant bleeding history underscores the necessity for further investigation. However, existing evidence suggests at least similar effectiveness and safety and potential benefits for DOACs in these patient subsets. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest these patients should be treated differently than the established guidelines regarding anticoagulation.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Older adult patients are underrepresented in clinical trials comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin. This subgroup analysis of the ARISTOPHANES study used multiple data sources to compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among very old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) prescribed NOACs or warfarin. DESIGN:Retrospective observational study. SETTING:The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and three US commercial claims databases. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 88 582 very old (aged ≥80 y) NVAF patients newly initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. MEASUREMENTS:In each database, six 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts were created for each drug comparison. Patient cohorts were pooled from all four databases after PSM. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of stroke/SE and MB. RESULTS:The patients in the six matched cohorts had a mean follow-up time of 7 to 9 months. Compared with warfarin, apixaban (HR = .58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .49-.69), dabigatran (HR = .77; 95% CI = .60-.99), and rivaroxaban (HR = .74; 95% CI = .65-.85) were associated with lower risks of stroke/SE. For MB, apixaban (HR = .60; 95% CI = .54-.67) was associated with a lower risk; dabigatran (HR = .92; 95% CI = .78-1.07) was associated with a similar risk, and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.07-1.24) was associated with a higher risk compared with warfarin. Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE and MB compared with dabigatran (stroke/SE: HR = .65; 95% CI = .47-.89; MB: HR = .60; 95% CI = .49-.73) and rivaroxaban (stroke/SE: HR = .72; 95% CI = .59-.86; MB: HR = .50; 95% CI = .45-.55). Dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of MB (HR = .77; 95% CI = .67-.90) compared with rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION:Among very old NVAF patients, NOACs were associated with lower rates of stroke/SE and varying rates of MB compared with warfarin. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1662-1671, 2019.
Project description:Polypharmacy is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), making these patients vulnerable to the occurrence of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We assessed the risk of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in the context of concomitant treatment with potential DDIs in patients with AF prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Using the common data model (CDM) based on an electronic health record (EHR) database, we included new users of DOACs from among patients treated for AF between January 2014 and December 2017 (n = 1938). The median age was 72 years, and 61.8% of the patients were males, with 28.2% of the patients having a CHA2DS2-VASc score in category 0-1, 49.4% in category 2-3, and 22.4% in category ≥ 4. The CHA2DS2-VASc score was significantly associated with ischemic stroke occurrence and hospitalization for major bleeding. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that increased risk of ischemic stroke and hospitalization for major bleeding was associated with the number of DDIs regardless of comorbidities: ≥ 2 DDIs was associated with ischemic stroke (OR = 18.68; 95% CI, 6.22-55.27, P < 0.001) and hospitalization for major bleeding (OR = 5.01; 95% CI, 1.11-16.62, P < 0.001). DDIs can cause reduced antithrombotic efficacy or increased risk of bleeding in AF patients prescribed DOACs.
Project description:The optimal antithrombotic strategy following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is not yet clearly established. Low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) might represent a valid alternative, but data regarding their usage is scarce. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of low-dose NOAC compared to single (SAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapies (DAPT) after LAAO. We included consecutive patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who underwent LAAO and received low-dose apixaban, SAPT, or DAPT at discharge. The primary objective of this study included an efficacy endpoint (thromboembolic events and device related thrombosis (DRT)) and a safety endpoint (incidence of major bleeding) within the first three months after LAAO. A total of 139 patients were included. This group involved SAPT in 26 (18%), DAPT in 73 (53%), and apixaban in 40 (29%) patients. Follow-up at three-months showed no significant differences in the primary efficacy endpoint (2 (8%) SAPT, 3 (4%) DAPT and 0 (0%) apixaban; p value = 0.25). In contrast, the primary safety endpoint occurred more frequently in DAPT patients (7 (10%) DAPT, 0 (0%), SAPT and 0 with apixaban; p value = 0.03). Combining both efficacy and safety outcomes, low dose apixaban had a lower rate of events (2 (8%) with SAPT, 9 (12%) with DAPT and 0 (0%) with apixaban; p = 0.046). Low-dose apixaban after LAAO may be a valid alternative to DAPT and SAPT as depicted by the reduction in the occurrence of major bleedings and combined DRT/major bleedings respectively. Randomized data will be necessary to validate this strategy.
Project description:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are dose-reduced in elderly and patients with impaired renal function. Only reduced dose dabigatran is concluded as having similar stroke risk reduction and lower risk of major bleeding than warfarin in the pivotal studies. In clinical practice, reduced dose is prescribed more often than expected making this an important issue. The objective of this study was to compare effectiveness and safety between reduced dose DOACs and high TTR warfarin treatment (TTR ≥ 70%) in NVAF. A Swedish anticoagulation registry was used in identifying eligible patients from July 2011 to December 2017. The study cohort consisted of 40,564 patients with newly initiated DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban) (11,083 patients) or warfarin treatment (29,481 patients) after exclusion of 374,135 patients due to not being warfarin or DOAC naïve, not being prescribed reduced dose, having previous mechanical heart valve (MHV), or being under 18 years old. The median durations of follow up were 365, 419, 432 and 473 days for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively. Warfarin TTR identified from Auricula was 70.0%. Endpoints (stroke and major bleeding) and baseline characteristics were collected from hospital administrative registers using ICD-10 codes. Cohorts were compared using weighted adjusted Cox regression after full optimal matching based on propensity scores. DOACs are associated with lower risk of major bleeding (HR with 95% CI) 0.85 (0.78-0.93), intracranial bleeding HR 0.64 (0.51-0.80), hemorrhagic stroke HR 0.68 (0.50-0.92), gastrointestinal bleeding HR 0.81 (0.69-0.96) and all-cause stroke HR 0.87 (0.76-0.99), than warfarin. Apixaban and dabigatran are associated with lower risk of major bleeding, HR 0.70 (0.63-0.78) and HR 0.80 (0.69-0.94), and rivaroxaban is associated with lower risk of ischemic stroke, HR 0.73 (0.59-0.96), with higher major bleeding risk, HR 1.31 (1.15-1.48), compared to warfarin. Apixaban is associated with higher all-cause mortality compared to warfarin, HR 1.12 (1.03-1.21). DOACs are associated with lower risk of major bleeding and all-cause stroke, than high quality warfarin treatment, with exception of rivaroxaban that carried higher risk of major bleeding and lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism. In this large observational registry-based NVAF cohort, DOACs are preferred treatment in patients with indication for DOAC dose reduction, even in a high TTR setting.
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and advanced kidney disease (AKD) has not been fully established.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety related to pooled or specific DOACs to that with warfarin in patients with AF and AKD.MethodsPatients with AF and AKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min) who received DOAC or warfarin from July 2011 to December 2020 were retrospectively identified in a medical center in Taiwan. Primary outcomes were hospitalized for stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included any ischemia and any bleeding.ResultsA total of 1,011 patients were recruited, of whom 809 (80.0%) were in the DOACs group (15.3% dabigatran, 25.4% rivaroxaban, 25.2% apixaban, and 14.1% edoxaban), and 202 (20.0%) in the warfarin group. DOACs had considerably lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.97) and any ischemia (aHR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79), but had comparable risks of major bleeding (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.34-2.92) and any bleeding (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50-1.09) than warfarin. Apixaban was linked to considerably lower risks of any ischemia (aHR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.48) and any bleeding (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28-0.99) than warfarin.ConclusionAmong patients with AF and AKD, DOACs were linked to a lower risk of ischemic events, and apixaban was linked to a lower risk of any ischemia and any bleeding than warfarin.
Project description:In Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains debatable. From the national health insurance claims data in South Korea, we included 425 new users of OAC among patients with non-valvular AF and ESRD undergoing dialysis between 2013 and 2020. Patients were categorized into DOAC (n = 106) and warfarin group (n = 319). Clinical outcomes, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, were compared between the two groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. During the median follow-up of 3.2 years, the incidence of ischemic stroke was significantly reduced in the DOAC compared to the warfarin group [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.07; P = 0.001]. However, the incidence of MI (HR 1.32; P = 0.41) and GI bleeding (HR 1.78; P = 0.06) were not significantly different between the two groups. No ICH events occurred in the DOAC group, although the incidence rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.17). In Asian patients with AF and ESRD undergoing dialysis, DOACs may be associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke compared with warfarin. The MI, ICH, and GI bleeding rates may be comparable between DOACs and warfarin.
Project description:The coexistence of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation (AF) in the same individuals raises great concern about the co-treatment with different antithrombotic agents in the case of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) revolutionised the therapy of AF; less is known, however, about the safety and efficacy of therapy with DOACs in combination with antiplatelet agents after PCI. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies enrolling patients with nonvalvular AF undergoing PCI. We assessed Mantel-Haenszel pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for any bleeding (AB), cardiovascular events (CVE), major bleeding (MB), myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST) at follow-up: 4849 patients have been included in the analysis. When compared with patients receiving standard triple therapy (vitamin-K antagonists plus double antiplatelet therapy [VKAs plus DAPT]), patients receiving DOACs (rivaroxaban/dabigatran plus either one or two antiplatelet agents) had a statistically significant lower risk of AB (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75, p<0.00001), as well as of MB (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73, p<0.00001). Equivalent efficacy was found about CVE (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.19, p=0.69), MI (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.81-1.45, p=0.57), while slight although non-statistically significant increased risk of ST was found (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.86-2.48, p=0.16). In conclusion, DOACs are safer than and as effective as warfarin when used in patients with AF undergoing PCI; dual therapy with DOACs is comparable to triple therapy in terms of safety and efficacy.
Project description:AimsIn patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are as effective and safe as the vitamin K antagonist (VKA) warfarin. Phenprocoumon has a different pharmacokinetic profile compared with warfarin and is the most used VKA in Germany. The aim of the study was to compare DOAC with phenprocoumon.Methods and resultsIn this retrospective single-centre cohort study, 1735 patients who underwent 2219 consecutive catheter ablations for AF between January 2011 and May 2017 were included. All patients were in-hospital for at least 48 h after catheter ablation. The primary outcome was defined as peri-procedural thrombo-embolic events. The secondary outcome was any bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH). The mean age of the patients was 63.3 years. Phenprocoumon was prescribed in 929 (42%) of the cases, and in 697 (31%) dabigatran, 399 (18%) rivaroxaban, and 194 (9%) apixaban. During hospitalization, 37 (1.6%) thrombo-embolic events occurred, including 23 transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs). Compared with the use of phenoprocoumon, the use of DOAC was significantly associated with a lower thrombo-embolic risk [16 (1.2%) vs. 21 (2.2%), odds ratio (OR)], 0.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.9], P = 0.04. No statistically significant association with bleeding risk was observed [phenprocomoun: 122 (13%); DOAC: 163 (12.6%); OR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7-1.2); P = 0.70]. Interruption of oral anticoagulation (OAC) was associated with an increased risk for thrombo-embolic complications [OR 2.2 (1.1-4.3); P = 0.031], and bleeding [OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.8-3.2), P = 0.001].ConclusionIn patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF, the use of DOAC was associated with a reduced risk of thrombo-embolic events compared with phenprocoumon. Non-interrupted oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy was associated with a reduced risk of peri-procedural thrombo-embolic and any bleeding complications.
Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) adopted the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula to calculate estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to determine the dosages of DOACs.ObjectivesThe authors aimed to investigate the agreements/disagreements of eGFRs calculated using different equations (CG, Modified Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] formulas), and their impacts on the dosages of DOACs and clinical outcomes.MethodsMedical data from a multicenter health care provider in Taiwan including 39,239 patients with atrial fibrillation were used. Among these patients, there were 11,185 and 2,323 patients treated with DOACs and warfarin, respectively.ResultsAt the cutoff values of eGFR of <15, 15-50, and >50 mL/min, the agreements were 78% between MDRD and CG and 81% between CKD-EPI and CG. The disagreements among the different equations were largely due to overestimations, especially for patients aged >75 years and with a body weight of <50 kg (58.8% for MDRD and 50.9% for CKD-EPI). Among patients receiving DOACs whose dosages were defined as "on label" based on MDRD or CKD-EPI, only those whose dosages were "truly on label" based on CG were associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (adjusted HR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.26-0.45) compared to warfarin.ConclusionsThe adoptions of MDRD or CKD-EPI rather than CG would result in inappropriate dosing of DOACs (mainly overdosing), which would attenuate the advantages of DOACs compared to warfarin. The CG equation should be used as the gold standard to calculate eGFRs and guide the DOAC dosages.