Dataset Information

Meta-analysis study on direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin therapy in atrial fibrillation and PCI: Dual or triple approach?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants may be required in the case of coexistence of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing (PCI), with associated increased bleeding rates. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), however, significantly reduced the incidence of bleeding complications in this clinical setting of patients. We therefore sought to assess whether the recent publication of the AUGUSTUS and ENTRUST-AF PCI studies significantly impacted current evidence on the use of DOACs in AF patients treated with PCI.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies enrolling patients with nonvalvular AF undergoing PCI. We assessed pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) and 95%CIs for any bleeding (AB), cardiovascular events (CVE), and death at follow-up: 12,542 patients have been included in the analysis. We particularly analyzed data comparing dual anti-thrombotic therapy (DOAC plus single anti-platelet therapy) with triple (DOAC plus dual anti-platelet therapy).

Results

When compared with patients receiving standard triple therapy with warfarin, patients receiving DOACs had a significantly lower risk of AB (RR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.70, p < 0.00001) and of MB (RR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.73, p < 0.00001). The risk of cardiovascular events and mortality were comparable between DOAC and VKA groups (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93-1.18, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94-1.37, respectively, p n.s.). Similar results were observed comparing triple therapy vs dual therapy.

Conclusions

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.

SUBMITTER: Brunetti ND

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330069 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analysis study on direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin therapy in atrial fibrillation and PCI: Dual or triple approach?

Brunetti Natale Daniele ND Tricarico Lucia L De Gennaro Luisa L Correale Michele M Santoro Francesco F Ieva Riccardo R Iacoviello Massimo M Di Biase Matteo M

International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature 20200628

<h4>Background</h4>Dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulants may be required in the case of coexistence of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing (PCI), with associated increased bleeding rates. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), however, significantly reduced the incidence of bleeding complications in this clinical setting of patients. We therefore sought to assess whether the recent publication of the AUGUSTUS and ENTRUST-AF PCI studies signific ...[more]

PMID: 32637570

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Patients with active peptic ulcer (PU) were excluded from direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) trials for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of DOACs in AF patients with active, inactive and no peptic ulcer (PU). Methods: This study accessed electronic medical records from January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2019 at a multi-center healthcare provider in Taiwan and involved 2,955 AF patients who had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy ≤ 1 year before anticoagulation. Subjects were classified into 3 groups: active (n = 237), inactive (n = 828) and no-PU (n = 1,890) groups. We compared the risks of major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) between DOACs and warfarin among the 3 groups. Results: In the active PU group, there were no significant differences in the risks of major bleeding [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-4.98, p = 0.676], gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.08-4.98, p = 0.676) and IS/SE (HR = 2.58; 95% CI 0.53-12.70, p = 0.243) between DOAC and warfarin (as the reference). In the inactive PU group, there were no significant differences in the risks of major bleeding (HR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.09-1.39, p = 0.138), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.02-1.80, p = 0.153), and IS/SE (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.39-2.82, p = 0.934) between DOAC and warfarin (as the reference). In the no-PU group, DOACs were associated with lower risk of major bleeding (HR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.12-0.53, p < 0.001), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.01-0.59, p = 0.002), and similar risk of IS/SE (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.54, p = 0.757) compared to warfarin. Conclusions: DOACs were as effective as warfarin in preventing IS/SE irrespective of PU status and safer than warfarin in reducing major bleeding in the no-PU group. In patients with active or inactive PUs, DOAC and warfarin were not significantly different in their effects on major bleeding or gastrointestinal bleeding.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies examining the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) have largely focused on patients newly initiating therapy. Little is known about the prevalence/patterns of switching to DOACs among AF patients initially treated with warfarin.HypothesisTo examine patterns of anticoagulation among patients chronically managed with warfarin upon the availability of DOACs and identify patient/practice-level factors associated with switching from chronic warfarin therapy to a DOAC.MethodsProspective cohort study of AF patients in the NCDR PINNACLE registry prescribed warfarin between May 1, 2008 and May 1, 2015. Patients were followed at least 1 year (median length of follow-up 375 days, IQR 154-375) through May 1, 2016 and stratified as follows: continued warfarin, switched to DOAC, or discontinued anticoagulation. To identify significant predictors of switching, a three-level multivariable hierarchical regression was developed.ResultsAmong 383 008 AF patients initially prescribed warfarin, 16.3% (n = 62 620) switched to DOACs, 68.8% (n = 263 609) continued warfarin, and 14.8% (n = 56 779) discontinued anticoagulation. Among those switched, 37.6% received dabigatran, 37.0% rivaroxaban, 24.4% apixaban, and 1.0% edoxaban. Switched patients were more likely to be younger, women, white, and have private insurance (all P < .001). Switching was less likely with increased stroke risk (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.91-0.93 per 1-point increase CHA2 DS2 -VASc), but more likely with increased bleeding risk (OR, 1.12; 95%CI, 1.10-1.13 per 1-point increase HAS-BLED). There was substantial variation at the practice-level (MOR, 2.33; 95%CI, 2.12-2.58) and among providers within the same practice (MOR, 1.46; 95%CI, 1.43-1.49).ConclusionsAmong AF patients treated with warfarin between October 1, 2010 and May 1, 2016, one in six were switched to DOACs, with differences across sociodemographic/clinical characteristics and substantial practice-level variation. In the context of current guidelines which favor DOACs over warfarin, these findings help benchmark performance and identify areas of improvement.

Project description:BackgroundDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated superior efficacy in preventing stroke and death compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their influence on dementia risk remains unclear.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative risks of dementia in DOAC vs warfarin in patients with AF.MethodsAn electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve studies reporting comparisons of dementia incidence between patients treated with DOACs and warfarin for AF. HRs and 95% CI were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to identify prognostic baseline variables. Network meta-analysis was performed to determine dementia risk between individual DOACs and warfarin.ResultsTen studies (n = 342,624) were retrieved. DOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing dementia compared with warfarin (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; P = 0.017; I2 = 75%); significance was also seen in Asian patients (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.86) but not non-Asian patients. Subgroup analyses of propensity score-matched studies and patients aged 65-75 years showed similar significance, but not for patients aged ≥75 years. Meta-regression found that a lower mean age corresponded to significantly greater favoring of DOAC over warfarin. Network meta-analysis found significant reductions in dementia risk over warfarin for rivaroxaban (HR: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.763-0.955), apixaban (HR: 0.881; 95% CI: 0.778-0.997), and dabigatran (HR: 0.871; 95% CI: 0.770-0.987); the highest-ranked treatment based on P scores was edoxaban.ConclusionsThe use of DOAC in AF significantly reduces dementia risk compared with warfarin, particularly in Asian patients. The possible reversal of this effect with increasing age merits further randomized trials with long-term follow-up. (Dementia Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; CRD42022365634).

Project description:BackgroundWhile clinical guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) over warfarin to treat isolated nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, guidelines are silent regarding nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treatment among individuals with cancer, reflecting the paucity of evidence in this setting. We quantified relative risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding (primary outcomes), and all-cause and cardiovascular death (secondary outcomes) among older individuals with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation comparing DOACs and warfarin.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and linked US Medicare data from 2010 through 2016, and included individuals diagnosed with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who newly initiated DOAC or warfarin. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to control confounding. We used competing risk regression for primary outcomes and cardiovascular death, and Cox proportional hazard regression for all-cause death.ResultsAmong 7675 individuals included in the cohort, 4244 (55.3%) received DOACs and 3431 (44.7%) warfarin. In the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there was no statistically significant difference among DOAC and warfarin users in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (1.24 versus 1.19 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 1.41 [95% CI, 0.92-2.14]), major bleeding (3.08 versus 4.49 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17]), and cardiovascular death (1.88 versus 3.14 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI, 0.59-0.1.13]). DOAC users had significantly lower risk of all-cause death (7.09 versus 13.3 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69-0.94]) compared to warfarin users.ConclusionsOlder adults with cancer and atrial fibrillation exposed to DOACs had similar risks of stroke and systemic embolism and major bleeding as those exposed to warfarin. Relative to warfarin, DOAC use was associated with a similar risk of cardiovascular death and a lower risk of all-cause death.

Dataset Information

Meta-analysis study on direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin therapy in atrial fibrillation and PCI: Dual or triple approach?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Meta-analysis study on direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin therapy in atrial fibrillation and PCI: Dual or triple approach?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets