Use of Oral Anticoagulation in Eligible Patients Discharged With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Luo N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6319668 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Use of Oral Anticoagulation in Eligible Patients Discharged With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation.
Luo Nancy N Xu Haolin H Jneid Hani H Fonarow Gregg C GC Lopes Renato D RD Piccini Jonathan P JP Curtis Anne B AB Russo Andrea M AM Lewis William R WR Matsouaka Roland A RA Granger Christopher B CB Mentz Robert J RJ Al-Khatib Sana M SM
Circulation. Heart failure 20181001 10
<h4>Background</h4>Stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) in the era of direct oral anticoagulants is not well characterized. Using data from American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-AFIB, we sought to evaluate oral anticoagulation (OAC) use at discharge among AF patients with concomitant HF.<h4>Methods and results</h4>AF patients with a diagnosis of HF hospitalized from January 2013 to March 2017 were included. We compared patient character ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice today. For those who present with it, one of the most major risks associated with the condition is stroke. AF is associated with a fivefold increased risk of stroke and thromboembolism. Oral anticoagulation has been the cornerstone of stroke prevention in patients with AF. In some individuals who exhibit a higher risk of bleeding, other alternatives for stroke prevention have been sought, including the use of left atrial appendage occlusion devices and surgical exclusion of the left atrial appendage. Catheter ablation is an important treatment strategy in those patients for whom a rhythm control strategy has been selected. This article reviews some of the available anticoagulant drug options and their use prior to, during, and after catheter ablation.
| S-EPMC7252752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 2019 ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines established direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as first line therapy over warfarin for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsAmbulatory clinic patients with non-valvular AF or atrial flutter seen between 10/1/2019-7/12/2020 included. High-risk AF defined as males CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 and females ≥3. Patients were separated into: warfarin, DOAC, or no oral anticoagulation (OAC). ATRIA bleed score calculated. A provider survey assessing knowledge and barriers to anticoagulation completed via REDCap between 3/5-4/16/2020.ResultsOf 12,014 subjects with AF, 8,032 were high risk (mean age 75.9 ± 9.8 years; 57.5% male). There were 4,619 (57.1%) ≥ 75 years and 63.4% were rural dwelling. There was no significant difference between the number of subjects on anticoagulation before and after the guideline publication (75.6% vs. 75.7%, p = 0.79). Warfarin use decreased 2.3% over 1 year (39.3% to 37.0%), while DOACs increased 2.4% (36.2% to 38.7%, p < 0.001 for both). At 1-year, age, male gender, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4-6, hypertension, stroke and cardiology consult increased prescription of OAC (p<0.05). Vascular disease, high risk ATRIA bleed, renal disease, prior hemorrhage, and left atrial appendage occlusion were associated with decreased OAC use (p < 0.05). Left atrial appendage occlusion device use was low (<1%). In a survey, majority of providers noted bleeding risk (35.1%) and cost (25.0%) to be the biggest barriers to DOAC use.ConclusionsThe new guidelines caused a slight increase in DOACs over time. Significant barriers to DOAC use exist in rural areas; one in four high risk AF patient remains without OAC therapy.
| S-EPMC11256238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeAtrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are common sources of cardioembolism. While oral anticoagulation is strongly recommended for atrial fibrillation, there are marked variations in guideline recommendations for HFrEF due to uncertainty about net clinical benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the comparative association of oral anticoagulation with stroke and other cardiovascular risk in populations with atrial fibrillation or HFrEF in sinus rhythm and identify factors mediating different estimates of net clinical benefit.MethodsPubMed and Embase were searched from database inception to November 20, 2019 for randomized clinical trials comparing oral anticoagulation to control. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate a pooled treatment-effect overall and within atrial fibrillation and HFrEF trials. Differences in treatment effect were assessed by estimating I2 among all trials and testing the between-trial-population P-interaction. The primary outcome measure was all stroke. Secondary outcome measures were ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, mortality, myocardial infarction, and major hemorrhage.ResultsTwenty-one trials were eligible for inclusion, 15 (n=19 332) in atrial fibrillation (mean follow-up: 23.1 months), and 6 (n=9866) in HFrEF (mean follow-up: 23.9 months). There were differences in primary outcomes between trial populations, with all-cause mortality included for 95.2% of HFrEF trial population versus 0.38% for atrial fibrillation. Mortality was higher in controls groups of HFrEF populations (19.0% versus 9.6%) but rates of stroke lower (3.1% versus 7.0%) compared with atrial fibrillation. The association of oral anticoagulation with all stroke was consistent for atrial fibrillation (odds ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42–0.63]) and HFrEF (odds ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47–0.79]; I2=12.4%; P interaction=0.31). There were no statistically significant differences in the association of oral anticoagulation with cardiovascular events, mortality or bleeding between populations.ConclusionsThe relative association of oral anticoagulation with stroke risk, and other cardiovascular outcomes, is similar for patients with atrial fibrillation and HFrEF. Differences in the primary outcomes employed by trials in HFrEF, compared with atrial fibrillation, may have contributed to differing conclusions of the relative efficacy of oral anticoagulation.
| S-EPMC8478106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Warfarin has had a thin margin of benefit over risk for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with ESRD because of higher bleeding risks and complications of therapy. The successful use of warfarin has been dependent on the selection of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at relatively high risk of stroke and systemic embolism and lower risks of bleeding over the course of therapy. Without such selection strategies, broad use of warfarin has not proven to be beneficial to the broad population of patients with ESRD and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In a recent meta-analysis of use of warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and ESRD, warfarin had no effect on the risks of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.82; P=0.65) or mortality (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.13; P=0.60) but was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.56; P<0.01). In pivotal trials, novel oral anticoagulants were generally at least equal to warfarin for efficacy and safety in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and mild to moderate renal impairment. Clinical data for ESRD are limited, because pivotal trials excluded such patients. Given the very high risk of stroke and systemic embolism and the early evidence of acceptable safety profiles of novel oral anticoagulants, we think that patients with ESRD should be considered for treatment with chronic anticoagulation provided that there is an acceptable bleeding profile. Apixaban is currently indicated in ESRD for this application and may be preferable to warfarin given the body of evidence for warfarin and its difficulty of use and attendant adverse events.
| S-EPMC5108189 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients, congestive heart failure (CHF) confers an increased risk of stroke or systemic thromboembolism. This risk is present in both heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It is unclear if clinicians account for both types of CHF in their NVAF anticoagulation practices. Accordingly, we characterized current outpatient anticoagulation trends in NVAF patients with HFpEF compared to patients with HFrEF.MethodsThe outpatient NCDR PINNACLE-AF registry was analyzed to identify patients with NVAF and CHF. The study population was subdivided into HFpEF (ie, LVEF ≥ 40%) and HFrEF (LVEF < 40%). Anticoagulation rates by CHF group were compared and stratified by CHA2 DS2 -VASc score.ResultsA total of 340 127 patients with NVAF and CHF were identified, of whom 248 136 (73.0%) were classified as HFpEF and 91 991 (27.0%) as HFrEF. Patients with HFpEF had higher mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores and were more likely to be female, older, and have hypertension (P < 0.001). Unadjusted anticoagulation rates were significantly lower in patients with HFpEF compared to those with HFrEF (60.6% vs 64.2%, respectively). Lower rates of anticoagulation in the HFpEF group persisted after risk adjustment (RR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.91, 0.94]). Stratification by CHA2 DS2 -VASc score demonstrated that lower rates of anticoagulation in patients with HFpEF persisted until a score of ≥5.ConclusionsPatients with NVAF and HFpEF have significantly lower anticoagulation rates when compared to their HFrEF counterparts. These findings suggest a potential underappreciation of HFpEF as a risk factor in patients with NVAF.
| S-EPMC6712307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study examined the annual prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its associated comorbidities, as well as the prevalence of warfarin therapy in South Korean patients with AF.MethodsThe National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort database was searched for subjects aged ≥30 years diagnosed with AF from 2002-2013. The prevalence of AF was analyzed by sex and age, as was the current status of warfarin therapy in AF patients according to CHA2DS2-VASc score and comorbidities.ResultsThe age-standardized prevalence of AF in men and women was 0.15% and 0.14%, respectively, in 2002, increasing to 0.54% and 0.39%, respectively, in 2013. In 2013, the prevalence of AF in men and women aged 30-39 years was 0.08% and 0.03%, respectively, increasing to 2.35% and 1.71%, respectively, in those in aged ≥60 years. During 2002-2013, the prevalence of AF in men significantly increased among subjects aged ≥30 years and increased in women aged ≥60 years. The age-standardized prevalence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus among AF patients were markedly increased during 2002-2013. Of these AF patients, 86.1% had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2; however, only 39.1% of these were receiving warfarin.ConclusionsThe age-standardized prevalence of AF increased 2.89-fold over the 12-year study period. The total number of patients with AF in South Korea has been drastically increasing, due to not only aging society but also increasing age-specific prevalence of AF, especially in middle-aged and elderly individuals. The rate of warfarin therapy increased slightly over the study period but remains low.
| S-EPMC5792231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) have superior safety and comparable efficacy profile compared to vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs), with more convenient dosing schemes. However, issues with adherence to the NOACs remain unsolved.AimsWe sought to investigate the adherence to oral anticoagulation (OAC) and baseline factors associated with poor adherence after ischaemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsWe recruited hospitalised patients (2013-2019) from two prospective stroke registries in Larissa and Helsinki University Hospitals and invited survived patients to participate in a telephone interview. We assessed adherence with the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) and defined poor adherence as a score of over 17. In addition to demographics, individual comorbidities, and stroke features, we assessed the association of CHA2DS2-VASc and SAMe-TT2R2 scores with poor adherence.ResultsAmong 396 patients (median age 75.0 years, interquartile range [IQR] 70-80; 57% men; median time from ischaemic stroke to interview 21 months [IQR 12-33]; median ARMS score 17 [IQR 17-19]), 56% of warfarin users and 44% of NOAC users reported poor adherence. In the multivariable regression model adjusted for site, sex, and age, poor adherence was independently associated with tertiary education, absence of heart failure, smoking history, use of VKA prior to index stroke, and prior ischaemic stroke. CHA2DS2-VASc and SAMe-TT2R2 scores were not associated with poor adherence.ConclusionsAdherence was poor in half of AF patients who survived an ischaemic stroke. Independent patient-related factors, rather than composite scores, were associated with poor adherence in these patients.KEY MESSAGESAdherence was poor in half of the atrial fibrillation patients who survived an ischaemic stroke.Independent patient-related factors rather than composite scores were associated with poor adherence.The findings support the importance of recognising adherence support as a crucial part of holistic patient care recommended by recent AF guideline.
| S-EPMC8439221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOral anticoagulation (OAC) reduces the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, thromboembolism (TE) still can occur despite OAC. Factors associated with residual risk for stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack events despite OAC have not been well described.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the residual risk of thromboembolic events in patients with AF despite OAC.MethodsA total of 18,955 patients were analyzed in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF I and II) using multivariable Cox proportional hazard modeling. Mean age was 72 ± 10.7, and 42% were women. There were 451 outcome events.ResultsThe risk of TE despite OAC increased with CHA2DS2-VASc score: 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.92) events per 100 patient-years for CHA2DS2-VASc score <4 vs 2.01 (95% CI 1.81-2.24) events per 100-patient years for CHA2DS2-VASc score >4. Factors associated with increased risk were previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (hazard ratio [HR] 2.87; 95% CI 2.30-3.59; P <.001), female sex (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.24-1.86; P <.001), hypertension (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.09-2.06; P = .01), and permanent AF (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.12-1.94; P = .001). When transient ischemic attack was excluded, the results were similar, but permanent AF was no longer significantly associated with thromboembolic events.ConclusionPatients with AF have a residual risk of TE with increasing CHA2DS2-VASc score despite OAC. Key risk markers include previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, female sex, hypertension, and permanent AF.
| S-EPMC9795305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) experiencing ischemic stroke despite oral anticoagulation (OAC), i.e., breakthrough strokes, are not uncommon, and represent an important clinical subgroup in view of the consistently high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality. The understanding of the heterogenous potential mechanism underlying OAC failure is essential in order to implement specific therapeutic measures aimed at reducing the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. However, due to the incomplete comprehension of this phenomenon and the limited available data, secondary stroke prevention in such high-risk patients represents a clinical dilemma. There are several available strategies to prevent ischemic stroke recurrence in AF patients with breakthrough stroke in the absence of competing causes unrelated to AF, and these include continuation or change in the type of OAC, addition of antiplatelet therapy, left atrial appendage closure, or any combination of the above options. However, due to the limited available data, the latest guidelines do not provide any specific recommendations about which of the above strategies may be preferred. This review describes the incidence, the clinical impact and the potential mechanisms underlying OAC failure in AF patients. Furthermore, the evidence supporting each of the above therapeutic options for secondary stroke prevention and the potential future directions will be discussed.
| S-EPMC10532406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeOral anticoagulants (OACs) prevent stroke recurrence and vascular embolism in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Based on empirical consensus, current guidance recommends a "1-3-6-12 days" rule to resume OACs after AIS. This study investigated the suitability of guideline-recommended timing for OAC initiation.MethodsUsing data of 12,307 AF patients hospitalized for AIS, for the period 2012 to 2016, in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we constructed a sequence of cohorts of OAC users and propensity score-matched nonusers, creating one cohort on each day of OAC initiation for 30 days since admission. Composite outcome included effectiveness (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, and venous thromboembolism) and safety (intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hematuria) outcomes. Comparing with nonusers, we examined the risks in the early OAC use (within 1-3-6-12 days) or guideline-recommended delayed use. Indirect comparison between the early and delayed use was conducted using mixed treatment comparison.ResultsAcross the AIS severity, the risks of composite or effectiveness outcome were lower in OAC users than nonusers, and the risks were similar between the early and delayed use groups. In patients with severe AIS, early OAC use was associated with an increased risk of safety outcome, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.67 (confidence interval [CI]: 1·30-2·13) compared with nonusers and a HR of 1.44 (CI: 0·99-2·09) compared with the delayed use.ConclusionOur study findings support an early OAC initiation in AF patients with mild-to-moderate AIS and a routine delayed use of OACs can be considered in those with severe AIS to avoid a serious bleeding event.
| S-EPMC9251709 | biostudies-literature