Dataset Information

Demystifying the Benefits and Harms of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Kidney Disease.

ABSTRACT: Patients with CKD represent a vulnerable population where the risks of atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, and bleeding are all heightened. Although large randomized, controlled trials in the general population clearly demonstrate that the benefits of warfarin and direct-acting oral anticoagulants outweigh the risks of bleeding, no such studies have been conducted in patients when their creatinine clearance falls below 25-30 ml/min. Without randomized, controlled trial data, the role of anticoagulation in patients with CKD with atrial fibrillation remains unclear and our practice is informed by a growing body of imperfect literature such as observational and pharmacokinetic studies. This article aims to present a contemporary literature review of the benefits versus harms of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation for patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and 5 on dialysis. Although unanswered questions and areas of clinical equipoise remain, this piece serves to assist physicians in interpreting the complex body of literature and applying it to their clinical care.

SUBMITTER: Garlo KG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6364544 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Demystifying the Benefits and Harms of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Kidney Disease.

Garlo Katherine G KG Steele David J R DJR Nigwekar Sagar U SU Chan Kevin E KE

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20181228 1

Patients with CKD represent a vulnerable population where the risks of atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, and bleeding are all heightened. Although large randomized, controlled trials in the general population clearly demonstrate that the benefits of warfarin and direct-acting oral anticoagulants outweigh the risks of bleeding, no such studies have been conducted in patients when their creatinine clearance falls below 25-30 ml/min. Without randomized, controlled trial data, the role of antico ...[more]

PMID: 30593489

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical benefits and risks of anticoagulation therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are still inconclusive. We describe the outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after anticoagulation therapy according to differences in creatinine clearance (CrCl). We also aimed to determine the patients who could benefit from anticoagulation therapy.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational review of patients with AF who were managed at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018. Patients were categorized into groups according to their baseline CrCl by Cockcroft-Gault equation and their outcomes were evaluated (CKD 1, ≥ 90 mL/min; CKD2, 60-89 mL/min; CKD3, 30-59 mL/min; CKD4, 15-29 mL/min; CKD 5, < 15 mL/min). The primary outcome was NACE (net adverse clinical events), defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding.ResultsWe identified 12,714 consecutive patients with AF (mean 64.6 ± 11.9 years, 65.3% male, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 2.4 ± 1.6 points) between 2006 and 2017. In patients receiving anticoagulation therapy (n = 4447, 35.0%), warfarin (N = 3768, 84.7%) was used more frequently than NOACs (N = 673, 15.3%). There was a higher 3-year rate of NACE with renal function deterioration (14.8%, 18.6%, 30.3%, 44.0%, and 48.8% for CKD stages 1-5, respectively).The clinical benefit of anticoagulation therapy was most prominent in patients with CKD 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.67), 2 (HR 0.64 CI 0.54-0.76), and 3 (HR 0.64 CI 0.54-0.76), but not in CKD 4 (HR 0.86, CI 0.57-1.28) and 5 (HR 0.81, CI 0.47-1.40). Among patients with CKD, the benefit of anticoagulation therapy was only evident in those with a high risk of embolism (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 4, HR 0.25, CI 0.08-0.80).ConclusionAdvanced CKD is associated with a higher risk of NACE. The clinical benefit of anticoagulation therapy was reduced with the increasing CKD stage.

Project description:Background and aimsFew recent large-scale studies have evaluated the risks and benefits of continuing oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluated the status of continuation of OAC therapy and the association between continuation of OAC therapy and thromboembolic and bleeding events according to the CHADS2 score.MethodsThis retrospective study included data from the Japanese nationwide administrative claims database of patients who underwent CA for AF between April 2014 and March 2021. Patients without AF recurrence assessed by administrative data of the treatment modalities were divided into two groups according to continuation of OAC therapy 6 months after the index CA. The primary outcomes were thromboembolism and major bleeding after a landmark period of 6 months. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, the association between OAC continuation and outcomes was determined according to the CHADS2 score.ResultsAmong 231 374 patients included, 69.7%, 21.6%, and 8.7% had CHADS2 scores of ≤1, 2, and ≥3, respectively. Of these, 71% continued OAC therapy at 6 months. The OAC continuation rate was higher in the high CHADS2 score group than that in the low CHADS2 score group. Among all patients, 2451 patients (0.55 per 100 person-years) had thromboembolism and 2367 (0.53 per 100 person-years) had major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≤1 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.01, P = .06] for thromboembolism and was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.27-1.80, P < .001) for major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≥3 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.46-0.82, P = .001) for thromboembolism and was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.71-1.56, P = 0.81) for major bleeding.ConclusionsThis observational study suggests that the benefits and risks of continuing OAC therapy after CA for AF differ based on the patient's CHADS2 score. The risk of major bleeding due to OAC continuation seems to outweigh the risk reduction of thromboembolism in patients with lower thromboembolic risk.

Dataset Information

Demystifying the Benefits and Harms of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Kidney Disease.

Publications

Demystifying the Benefits and Harms of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation in Chronic Kidney Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets