Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants in patients requiring catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rahman H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7453962 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants in patients requiring catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Rahman Hammad H Khan Safi U SU DePersis Michael M Hammad Tehseen T Nasir Fahad F Kaluski Edo E
Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions 20180509 2
<h4>Background</h4>The ideal oral anticoagulant agent during catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) remained unclear.<h4>Hypothesis</h4>Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are safer and effective compared to uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists (U-VKA) among patients requiring CA for AF.<h4>Methods</h4>Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies (OS) were selected using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and the CENTRAL data bases (Inception-December-2017). Estimates were ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionNovel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been approved for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). A large number of patients are on NOACs when they present for AF ablation. We intended to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NOACs for AF ablation during the periprocedural period by performing a meta-analysis of trials comparing NOACs with warfarin.MethodsStudies comparing NOACs (dabigatran and rivaroxaban) with warfarin as periprocedural anticoagulants for AF ablation were identified using an electronic search. Primary outcomes were: (1) a composite endpoint of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), peripheral arterial embolism, or silent cerebral lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and (2) major bleeding complications. A random effects model was used to pool the safety and efficacy data across all included trials.ResultsWhen compared to warfarin, there was an increased risk of the composite endpoint of stroke, TIA, peripheral arterial embolism, or silent cerebral lesions on MRI with NOACs as periprocedural anticoagulants for AF ablation [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-2.68]. Sub-group analysis revealed a higher risk of composite endpoint with dabigatran as a periprocedural anticoagulant for AF ablation (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.19-3.39) whereas the risk was similar with rivaroxaban (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.34-2.41). Sensitivity analysis after excluding silent cerebral lesions on MRI showed there was no increased risk of thromboembolic events with either dabigatran (OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.81-3.51) or rivaroxaban (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.12-4.04). Risk of bleeding with NOACs was similar to warfarin (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.62-1.34).ConclusionNOACs are comparable to warfarin in terms of bleeding complications. However, dabigatran therapy is potentially associated with a higher risk of silent cerebral lesions on MRI. The results of this study should be considered as hypothesis-generating and assessed further in prospective randomized clinical studies.
| S-EPMC4906088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUse of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is endorsed by current guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However efficacy and safety of NOACs in patients undergoing catheter ablation (RFCA) of AF has not been well established yet.ObjectivesTo perform a meta-analysis of all studies comparing NOACs and vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (VKAs) in patients undergoing RFCA.Data sourcesStudies were searched for in PubMed and Google Scholar databases.Study eligibility criteriaStudies were considered eligible if: they evaluated the clinical impact of NOACs versus VKAs; they specifically analyzed the use of anticoagulants during periprocedural phase of RFCA; they reported clinical outcome data.Study appraisal and synthesis methods25 studies were selected, including 9881 cases. The summary measure used was the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The random-effects or the fixed effect model were used to synthesize results from the selected studies.ResultsThere was no significant difference in thromboembolic complications (RR 1.39; p=0.13). Bleeding complications were significantly lower in the NOACs-treated arm as compared to VKAs (RR=0.67, p<0.001). Interestingly, a larger number of thromboembolic events was found in the VKAs-treated arm in those studies where VKAs had been interrupted during the periprocedural phase (RR=0.68; p=ns). In this same subgroup a significantly higher incidence of both minor (RR=0.54; p=0.002) and major bleeding (RR=0.41; p=0.01) events was recorded. Conversely, the incidence of thromboembolic events in the VKAs-treated arm was significantly lower in those studies with uninterrupted periprocedural anticoagulation treatment (RR=1.89; p=0.02).LimitationsAs with every meta-analysis, no patients-level data were available.Conclusions and implicationsThe use of NOACs in patients undergoing RFCA is safe, given the lower incidence of bleedings observed with NOACs. On the other side, periprocedural interruption of VKAs and bridging with heparin is associated with a higher bleeding rate with no significant benefit on onset of thromboembolic events.
| S-EPMC4431735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is no consensus on the most efficient catheter ablation (CA) strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies for AF ablation through network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL was performed up to October 5th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing different CA approaches were included. Efficacy was defined as arrhythmia recurrence after CA and safety as any reported complication related to the procedure during a minimum follow-up time of 6 months.ResultsIn total, 67 RCTs (n = 9871) comparing 19 different CA strategies were included. The risk of recurrence was significantly decreased compared to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone for PVI with renal denervation (RR: 0.60, CI: 0.38-0.94), PVI with ganglia-plexi ablation (RR: 0.62, CI: 0.41-0.94), PVI with additional ablation lines (RR: 0.8, CI: 0.68-0.95) and PVI in combination with bi-atrial modification (RR: 0.32, CI: 0.11-0.88). Strategies including PVI appeared superior to non-PVI strategies such as electrogram-based approaches. No significant differences in safety were observed.ConclusionsThis NMA showed that PVI in combination with additional CA strategies, such as autonomic modulation and additional lines, seem to increase the efficacy of PVI alone. These strategies can be considered in treating patients with AF, since, additionally, no differences in safety were observed. This study provides decision-makers with comprehensive and comparative evidence about the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registry number: CRD42020169494 .
| S-EPMC9153169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMuch direct evidence has proved that the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are noninferior or superior to warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and lead to a relevant decrease in bleeding profiles. However, no study has compared NOACs with each other head-to-head. The current study is a network meta-analysis aiming to assess the efficacy and safety of NOACs.MethodsCochrane library, Pubmed NCBI, EMBASE and MEDLINE were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy and safety profiles of NOACs compared with warfarin. The primary outcome was the rate of stroke or systemic embolism, and the secondary outcome was the rate of bleeding events. Network meta-analysis was performed using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.ResultsA total of four phase III randomized controlled trials (n = 71683) met the inclusion criteria. All NOACs except low dose of edoxaban showed noninferior efficacies to warfarin in stroke prevention. In the field of hemorrhage, apixaban was safer than edoxaban 60 mg in any bleeding events and had fewer major bleeding events compared with dabigatran 150 mg and rivaroxaban.ConclusionNOACs are promising candidates for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation due to a favorable risk-benefit profile. All NOACs other than edoxaban 30 mg had parallel efficacies with respect to stroke prevention. Apixaban had an advantage over the other NOACs in safety.
| S-EPMC4244213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) for antithrombotic prophylaxis, which were shown to have a favorable risk-benefit profile. However, there are no guidelines for the use of DOACs in elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) with AF, which creates uncertainty about the optimal antithrombotic treatment in these patients. Methods: After comprehensively searching Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, five phase III randomized controlled trials involving 28,137 elderly participants were included in this study. The efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, and the safety outcome was major bleeding. We conducted a network meta-analysis by using a Bayesian random-effect model for the first time to evaluate the efficacy and safety of main DOACs (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) and warfarin in elderly patients with AF. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effect of drugs on efficacy and safety. The rank probabilities were used to reflect the hierarchy of drugs, and a larger rank probability value symbolized a better rank of drugs. Results: In the prophylaxis of stroke or systemic embolism, apixaban was found to be the best among DOACs compared to warfarin (HR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.33-1.50), though this finding was not statistically significant. Apixaban ranked the best (rank probabilities, 41.2%) in efficacy of drugs, followed by rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin (rank probabilities, 31.8, 15.9, 10.9, and 0.2%, respectively). In reducing the risk of major bleeding, apixaban was found to be the best among DOACs too, compared to warfarin (HR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.33-1.30), though this finding was not statistically significant. In safety, apixaban ranked the best (rank probabilities, 71.4%), followed by edoxaban, dabigatran, warfarin, and rivaroxaban (rank probabilities, 21.0, 5.8, 0.9, and 0.8%, respectively). Conclusions: DOACs showed a lower incidence of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding compared with warfarin in antithrombotic therapy in elderly patients (aged ≥75 years), with apixaban being the best of those interventions. Therefore, apixaban should be given priority as an anticoagulant in stroke prevention for elderly patients with AF.
| S-EPMC7154089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dabigatran, an oral thrombin inhibitor, and rivaroxaban and apixaban, oral factor Xa inhibitors, have been found to be safe and effective in reducing stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the 3 new agents based on data from their published warfarin-controlled randomized trials, using the method of adjusted indirect comparisons.We included findings from 44 535 patients enrolled in 3 trials of the efficacy of dabigatran (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy [RELY]), apixaban (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]), and rivaroxaban (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation [ROCKET-AF]), each compared with warfarin. The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism; the safety end point we studied was major hemorrhage. To address a lack of comparability between trial populations caused by the restriction of ROCKET-AF to high-risk patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis in patients with a CHADS(2) score ?3. We found no statistically significant efficacy differences among the 3 drugs, although apixaban and dabigatran were numerically superior to rivaroxaban. Apixaban produced significantly fewer major hemorrhages than dabigatran and rivaroxaban.An indirect comparison of new anticoagulants based on existing trial data indicates that in patients with a CHADS(2) score ?3 dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban 5 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg resulted in statistically similar rates of stroke and systemic embolism, but apixaban had a lower risk of major hemorrhage compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban. Until head-to-head trials or large-scale observational studies that reflect routine use of these agents are available, such adjusted indirect comparisons based on trial data are one tool to guide initial therapeutic choices.
| S-EPMC3471365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCatheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure (HF) patients reduced the mortality but may increase complications and raise the safety concern.HypothesisCA for AF in HF patients may not increase the complications vs medical treatment, and it may reduce hospitalizations and mortality and improve heart function.MethodsThree groups of AF patients were included in the study: 120 congestive HF for their first CA (AFHF-CA), 150 congestive HF who were undergoing medical therapy (AFHF-Med), and 150 patients with normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) (AF-CA).ResultsAfter 30 ± 6 months of follow up, 45.8% of patients in the AFHF-CA and 61.3% of patients in the AF-CA groups maintained sinus rhythm (SR) in comparison with 2.7% in AFHF-Med (P < .01). Hospitalization for HF was significantly lower in AFHF-CA than in AFHF-Med groups (P < .01). Death occurred in 7.5% of patients in the AFHF-CA group, which was lower than 18% in the AFHF-Med group (P < .01). Significant improvements in heart function were shown in the AFHF-CA group compared to the AFHF-Med group, including LVEF (P < .01), LV end-diastolic diameter (P < .01), and New York Heart Association classification (P < .01), as well as the left atrial diameter (P < .01). AFHF-CA patients required additional ablation more often (P < .05). CA had a better prognosis in paroxysmal AF and tachycardia-related diseases.ConclusionCA for AF reduced hospitalizations and mortality and improved heart function, vs medical treatment, and was as safe as CA in those with normal heart function.
| S-EPMC7068063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Whereas, high-power short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation is generally used in atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation (CA), its efficacy, safety, and influence on autonomic function have not been well established in a large population. This study compared HPSD-AFCA and conventional power (ConvP)-AFCA in propensity score matched-population. Methods: In 3,045 consecutive patients who underwent AFCA, this study included 1,260 patients (73.9% male, 59 ± 10 years old, 58.2% paroxysmal type) after propensity score matching: 315 in 50~60W HPSD group vs. 945 in the ConvP group. This study investigated the procedural factors, complication rate, rhythm status, and 3-month heart rate variability (HRV) between the two groups and subgroups. Results: Procedure time was considerably short in the HPSD group (135 min in HPSD vs. 181 min in ConvP, p < 0.001) compared to ConvP group, but there was no significant difference in the complication rate (2.9% in HPSD vs. 3.7% in ConvP, p = 0.477) and the 3-month HRV between the two groups. At the one-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in rhythm outcomes between the two groups (Overall, Log-rank p = 0.885; anti-arrhythmic drug free, Log-rank p = 0.673). These efficacy and safety outcomes were consistently similar irrespective of the AF type or ablation lesion set. The Cox regression analysis showed that the left atrium volume index estimated by computed tomography (HR 1.01 [1.00-1.02]), p = 0.003) and extra-pulmonary vein triggers (HR 1.59 [1.03-2.44], p = 0.036) were independently associated with one-year clinical recurrence, whereas the HPSD ablation was not (HR 1.03 [0.73-1.44], p = 0.887). Conclusion: HPSD-AFCA notably reduced the procedure time with similar rhythm outcomes, complication rate, and influence on autonomic function as ConvP-AFCA, irrespective of the AF type or ablation lesion set.
| S-EPMC8530188 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10873714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGrowing evidence suggests that second-generation cryoballoon ablation (2G-CB) is effective in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF). The cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The purpose of this study was to summarize the available data on the safety and mid-term (≥ 12 months) effectiveness of a 'PVI-only' strategy vs. a 'PVI-plus' strategy using 2G-CB in patients with PerAF.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases for studies on 2G-CB for PerAF. Group analysis was based on the ablation approach: 'PVI-only' versus 'PVI-plus', the latter of which involved PVI plus other substrate modifications. Studies showing clinical success rates at a follow-up (FU) of ≥ 12 months were included. Complication rates were also assessed. Data were analyzed by applying a fixed effects model.ResultsA total of 879 patients from 5 studies were analyzed. After a mid-term FU of 27 months, the overall success rate of 2G-CB for PerAF was 66.1%. In the 'PVI-plus' group, the success rate was 73.8%. In the 'PVI-only' group, the success rate was 53.6%. No heterogeneity was noted among studies (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.82). Complications occurred in 5.2% of patients (P = 0.93), and the rate of phrenic nerve (PN) injury was 2.8% (P = 0.14). Vascular assess complications were the most frequent at 1.6% (P = 0.33). No death or myocardial infarction was reported.Conclusion'PVI-plus' involving 2G-CB seems to be safe and effective for treating PerAF.
| S-EPMC6201921 | biostudies-literature