Dataset Information

Oral anticoagulation management in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is associated with increased periprocedural risks after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Patterns of anticoagulation management involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have not been characterized. HYPOTHESIS:Anticoagulation strategies and outcomes differ by anticoagulant type in patients undergoing CIED implantation. METHODS:Using the nationwide Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we assessed how atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing CIED implantation were cared for and their subsequent outcomes. Outcomes were compared by oral anticoagulant therapy (none, warfarin, or NOAC) as well as by anticoagulation interruption status. RESULTS:Among 9129 AF patients, 416 (5%) underwent CIED implantation during a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range, 24-36). Of these, 60 (14%) had implantation on a NOAC. Relative to warfarin therapy, those on a NOAC were younger (70.5 years [range, 65-77.5 years] vs 77 years [range, 70-82 years]), had less valvular heart disease (15.0% vs 31.3%), higher creatinine clearance (67.3 [range, 59.7-99.0] vs 65.8 [range, 50.0-91.6]), were more likely to have persistent AF (26.7% vs 22.9%), and use concomitant aspirin (51.7% vs 35.2%). OAC therapy was commonly interrupted for CIED in 64% (n?=?183 of 284) of warfarin patients and 65% (n?=?39 of 60) of NOAC patients. Many interrupted patients received intravenous bridging anticoagulation: 33/183 (18%) interrupted warfarin and 4/39 (10%) interrupted NOAC patients. Thirty-day periprocedure bleeding and stroke adverse events were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS:Management of anticoagulation among AF patients undergoing CIED implantation is highly variable, with OAC being interrupted in more than half of both warfarin- and NOAC-treated patients. Bleeding and stroke events were infrequent in both warfarin and NOAC-treated patients.

SUBMITTER: Black-Maier E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5638096 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oral anticoagulation management in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.

Black-Maier Eric E Kim Sunghee S Steinberg Benjamin A BA Fonarow Gregg C GC Freeman James V JV Kowey Peter R PR Ansell Jack J Gersh Bernard J BJ Mahaffey Kenneth W KW Naccarelli Gerald G Hylek Elaine M EM Go Alan S AS Peterson Eric D ED Piccini Jonathan P JP

Clinical cardiology 20170519 9

<h4>Background</h4>Oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is associated with increased periprocedural risks after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Patterns of anticoagulation management involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have not been characterized.<h4>Hypothesis</h4>Anticoagulation strategies and outcomes differ by anticoagulant type in patients undergoing CIED implantation.<h4>Methods</h4>Using the nationwide Outcomes Registry for Better Inform ...[more]

PMID: 28543401

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cardiological societies recommend, in their guidelines, that patients with atrial fibrillation and an intermediate (or higher) risk of stroke and systemic embolization should be treated with oral anticoagulant drugs. For patients who do not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis, non-vitamin-K dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for this purpose. It is unclear, however, whether patients with chronic kidney disease and atrial fibrillation benefit from oral anticoagulation to the same extent as those with normal kidney function. It is also unclear which of the two types of anti - coagulant drug is preferable for patients with chronic kidney disease; NOAC are, in part, renally eliminated. METHODS:This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search, and on international guidelines. RESULTS:Current evidence suggests that patients with atrial fibrillation who have chronic kidney disease with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) above 15 mL/ min/1.73 m² should be treated with an oral anticoagulant drug if they have an at least intermediate risk of embolization, as assessed with the CHA2DS2-VASc score. For patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (GFR from 15 to 29 mL/ min/1.73 m²), however, this recommendation is based only on registry studies. For dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation, decisions whether to give oral anticoagulant drugs should be taken on an individual basis, in view of the elevated risk of hemorrhage and the unclear efficacy of such drugs in these patients. The subgroup analyses of the NOAC approval studies show that, for patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease with a creatinine clearance of >25-30 mL/min, NOAC should be given in preference to VKA, as long as the patient does not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis. For those whose creatinine clearance is less than 25 mL/min, the relative merits of NOAC versus VKA are still debated. CONCLUSION:The cardiological societies' recommendation that patients with atrial fibrillation should be given oral anticoagulant drugs applies to the majority of such patients who also have chronic kidney disease.

Dataset Information

Oral anticoagulation management in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.

Publications

Oral anticoagulation management in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets