Dataset Information

Benefit of warfarin compared with aspirin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm: a subgroup analysis of WARCEF, a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin.We used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcome. A secondary analysis added major hemorrhage to the outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was time to the first to occur of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death. Only age group was a significant treatment effect modifier (P for interaction, 0.003). Younger patients benefited from warfarin over aspirin on the primary outcome (4.81 versus 6.76 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.84; P=0.001). In older patients, therapies did not differ (9.91 versus 9.01 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.35; P=0.44). With major hemorrhage added, in younger patients the event rate remained lower for warfarin than aspirin (5.41 versus 7.25 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89; P=0.005), but in older patients it became significantly higher for warfarin (11.80 versus 9.35 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.53; P=0.03).In patients <60 years, warfarin improved outcomes over aspirin with or without inclusion of major hemorrhage. In patients ?60 years, there was no treatment difference, but the aspirin group had significantly better outcomes when major hemorrhage was included.

SUBMITTER: Homma S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4242511 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benefit of warfarin compared with aspirin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm: a subgroup analysis of WARCEF, a randomized controlled trial.

Homma Shunichi S Thompson John L P JL Sanford Alexandra R AR Mann Douglas L DL Sacco Ralph L RL Levin Bruce B Pullicino Patrick M PM Freudenberger Ronald S RS Teerlink John R JR Graham Susan S Mohr J P JP Massie Barry M BM Labovitz Arthur J AJ Di Tullio Marco R MR Gabriel André P AP Lip Gregory Y H GY Estol Conrado J CJ Lok Dirk J DJ Ponikowski Piotr P Anker Stefan D SD

Circulation. Heart failure 20130723 5

<h4>Background</h4>The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcom ...[more]

PMID: 23881846

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm.MethodsWe designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause.ResultsThe rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P=0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P=0.82).ConclusionsAmong patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.).

Project description:Previous studies in patients with atrial fibrillation showed that a history of heart failure (HF) could negatively impact anticoagulation quality, as measured by the average time in therapeutic range (TTR). Whether additional markers of HF severity are associated with TTR has not been investigated thoroughly. We aimed to examine the potential role of HF severity in the quality of warfarin control in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Data from the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction Trial were used to investigate the association between TTR and HF severity. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association of markers of HF severity, including New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, Minnesota Living with HF (MLWHF) score, and frequency of HF hospitalization, with TTR ≥70% (high TTR). We included 1,067 participants (high TTR, N = 413; low TTR, N = 654) in the analysis. In unadjusted analysis, patients with a high TTR were older and less likely to have had strokes or receive other antiplatelet agents. Those patients also had lower NYHA class, better MLWHF scores, greater 6-minute walk distance, and lower frequency of HF hospitalizations. Multivariable analysis showed that NYHA class III and/or IV (Odds ratio [OR] 0.68 [95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.49 to 0.94]), each 10-point increase in MLWHF score (i.e., worse health-related quality of life) (OR 0.92 [0.86 to 0.99]), and higher number of HF hospitalization per year (OR0.45 [0.30 to 0.67]) were associated with decreased likelihood of having high TTR. In HF patients with systolic dysfunction, NYHA class III and/or IV, poor health-related quality of life, and a higher rate of HF hospitalization were independently associated with suboptimal quality of warfarin anticoagulation control. These results affirm the need to assess the new approaches, such as direct oral anticoagulants, to prevent thromboembolism in this patient population.

Dataset Information

Benefit of warfarin compared with aspirin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm: a subgroup analysis of WARCEF, a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Benefit of warfarin compared with aspirin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm: a subgroup analysis of WARCEF, a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets