Dataset Information

Apixaban versus No Anticoagulation in Patients Undergoing Long-Term Dialysis with Incident Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

The relative efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with no anticoagulation have not been studied in patients on maintenance dialysis with atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine whether apixaban is associated with better clinical outcomes compared with no anticoagulation in this population.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

This retrospective cohort study used 2012-2015 US Renal Data System data. Patients on maintenance dialysis with incident, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban (521 patients) were matched for relevant baseline characteristics with patients not treated with any anticoagulant agent (1561 patients) using a propensity score. The primary outcome was hospital admission for a new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism. The secondary outcome was fatal or intracranial bleeding. Competing risk survival models were used.

Results

Compared with no anticoagulation, apixaban was not associated with lower incidence of the primary outcome: hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 2.23; P=0.47. A significantly higher incidence of fatal or intracranial bleeding was observed with apixaban compared with no treatment: hazard ratio, 2.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.37 to 5.47; P=0.004. A trend toward fewer ischemic but more hemorrhagic strokes was seen with apixaban compared with no treatment. No significant difference in the composite outcome of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke was seen with apixaban compared with no treatment. Compared with no anticoagulation, a significantly higher rate of the primary outcome and a significantly higher incidence of fatal or intracranial bleeding and of hemorrhagic stroke were seen in the subgroup of patients treated with the standard apixaban dose (5 mg twice daily) but not in patients who received the reduced apixaban dose (2.5 mg twice daily).

Conclusions

In patients with kidney failure and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, treatment with apixaban was not associated with a lower incidence of new stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism but was associated with a higher incidence of fatal or intracranial bleeding.

Podcast

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_05_29_CJN11650919.mp3.

SUBMITTER: Mavrakanas TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7409754 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:With increasing life-expectancy and changing demographics, non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently the most common indication for long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Due to a decreasing trend in the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (RHD), valve disease as a primary cause of AF now constitutes a small fraction of all people with AF. Moreover, emerging data also indicate that, patients with significant valve disease and AF may have a risk of stroke similar to, if not lower than, those with non-valvular AF. Previous trials of anticoagulation for AF excluded people from LMICs partly because valvular AF constituted a large proportion of those with AF, and it was thought to confer a prohibitively high risk of stroke. Trialists should therefore be less reluctant to include patients with AF from LMICs in general, and those with valve disease in particular, in future trials of anticoagulation. The quality of vitamin K antagonist based oral anticoagulation remains poor in LMICs to a large extent because of poor monitoring. The widespread use of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) presents a practical approach to improve anticoagulation quality. Randomised trials of DOACs in valvular AF are particularlycriticalto bridge the knowledge gap in this area. Discussions regarding oral anticoagulation (OAC) use in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have historicallybeendominated by severallong-held beliefs. The first is that the quality of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) based anticoagulation is poor in these countries. The veracity of this assumption is supported by a large number of studies documenting both lower prescription of OACs, and a lower proportion of international normalised ratio (INR) values in the therapeutic range.1The second is that a large proportion of patients receiving OAC in LMICs have atrial fibrillation (AF) related to valvular heart disease, and rheumatic mitral stenosis in particular. This assumption, perhaps valid several decades ago, is no longer supported by the data. Finally, patients with valvular heart disease and AF (specifically those with moderate or severe valve lesions), are thought to be at prohibitively high thromboembolic risk. 2 However, recent evidence suggests that this risk may have been overestimated.34Nevertheless, the aforementioned assumptions continue to contribute to the underrepresentation of patients from LMICs in clinical trials of oral anticoagulation. Knowledge of the characteristics of contemporary patients in LMICs who are eligible for long-term OAC, estimates of their stroke risk, and a better understanding of the drivers of poor anticoagulation quality, may help guide research and clinical practice. In this review, we seek to provide an evidence-based perspective on OAC use in patients with AF living in LMICs and China.

Project description:RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with kidney failure treated by maintenance dialysis. Whether the incidence of AF differs between patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:Using the US Renal Data System, we identified older patients (?67 years) with Medicare Parts A and B who initiated dialysis therapy (1996-2011) without a diagnosis of AF during the prior 2 years. EXPOSURE:Dialysis modality at incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and maintained for at least 90 days. OUTCOME:Patients were followed up for 36 months or less for a new diagnosis of AF. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:Time-to-event analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate cause-specific HRs while censoring at modality switch, kidney transplantation, or death. RESULTS:Overall, 271,722 older patients were eligible; 17,487 (6.9%) were treated with peritoneal dialysis, and 254,235 (93.1%), with hemodialysis, at the onset of ESRD. During 406,225 person-years of follow-up, 69,705 patients had AF newly diagnosed. Because the proportionality assumption was violated, we introduced an interaction term between time (first 90 days vs thereafter) and modality. The AF incidence during the first 90 days was 187/1,000 person-years on peritoneal dialysis therapy and 372/1,000 person-years on hemodialysis therapy. Patients on peritoneal dialysis therapy had an adjusted 39% (95% CI, 34%-43%) lower incidence of AF than those on hemodialysis therapy. From day 91 onward, AF incidence was ?140/1,000 person-years with no major difference between modalities. LIMITATIONS:Residual confounding from unobserved differences between exposure groups; ascertainment of AF from billing claims; study of first modality may not generalize to patients switching modalities; uncertain generalizability to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS:Although patients initiating dialysis therapy using peritoneal dialysis had a lower AF incidence during the first 90 days of ESRD, there was no major difference in AF incidence thereafter. The value of interventions to reduce the early excess AF risk in patients receiving hemodialysis may warrant further study.