Dataset Information

Discontinuation of oral anticoagulation therapy after successful atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The safety of discontinuing oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation remains controversial. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the safety and feasibility of discontinuing OAC therapy after successful AF ablation.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched up to October 2020 for prospective cohort studies that reported the risk of thromboembolism (TE) after successful AF ablation in off-OAC and on-OAC groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of TE events. The Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects modeling was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

A total of 11,148 patients (7,160 in the off-OAC group and 3,988 in the on-OAC group) from 10 studies were included to meta-analysis. No significant difference in TE between both groups was observed (OR, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.51-1.05; I2 = 0.0%). The risk of major bleeding in off-OAC group was significantly lower compared to the on-OAC group (OR, 0.18; 95%CI, 0.07-0.51; I2 = 51.7%).

Conclusions

Our study suggests that it may be safe to discontinue OAC therapy in patients after successful AF ablation. Additionally, an increased risk of major bleeding was observed in patients on OAC. However, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity among the included study designs. Large-scale and adequately powered randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

SUBMITTER: Liu XH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8224925 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommended that oral anticoagulants (OACs) should last for a minimum first 2 months after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and the long-term decision of anticoagulation after AF ablation should be based on the individual patient's risk of stroke rather than the rhythm status. There is controversy about the safety of discontinuing OACs in patients with atrial fibrillation after the blanking period due to the divergences between consensus recommendations and clinical practice.MethodsElectronic bibliographic sources (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched until August 2023 to identify cohort studies about the safety of discontinuing OACs in patients with AF after the blanking period. The primary outcome was thromboembolism (TE). The secondary outcome was major bleeding events (MBEs). Two authors extracted articles independently using predefined data fields. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on a random-effects model.ResultsA total of 16 studies (11 prospective cohorts and 5 retrospective cohorts) enrolling 23,942 patients (14,382 OFF-OAC and 9560 ON-OAC) were included in our analysis. No significant difference emerged in the risk of TE between OFF-OAC and ON-OAC patients following AF ablation after the banking period (OR = 0.66; 95%CI, 0.43-1.01). Similar results emerged in the patients with a high risk of TE after stratification by the risk level of TE (OR = 0.72; 95%CI, 0.25-2.08). A significant reduction in incidences of major bleeding was found in the OFF-OAC patients compared with the ON-OAC patients (OR = 0.23; 95%CI, 0.12-0.42). Subgroup analyses for TE found a reduction of incidences in the subgroups who switched to antiplatelet drugs and with a follow-up duration <3 years. Subgroup analyses for MBEs found a significant reduction of incidences in all subgroups.ConclusionsOur study suggests it can be safe to discontinue OACs after successful AF ablation. Discontinuation of OACs may reduce the risk of MBEs while not increasing the risk of TE.

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:BackgroundOral anticoagulation (OAC) in atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE). The impact of OAC discontinuation is less well documented.ObjectiveInvestigate outcomes of patients prospectively enrolled in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation study who discontinued OAC.MethodsOral anticoagulation discontinuation was defined as cessation of treatment for ≥7 consecutive days. Adjusted outcome risks were assessed in 23 882 patients with 511 days of median follow-up after discontinuation.ResultsPatients who discontinued (n = 3114, 13.0%) had a higher risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]) of all-cause death (1.62 [1.25-2.09]), stroke/systemic embolism (SE) (2.21 [1.42-3.44]) and myocardial infarction (MI) (1.85 [1.09-3.13]) than patients who did not, whether OAC was restarted or not. This higher risk of outcomes after discontinuation was similar for patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (p for interactions range = 0.145-0.778). Bleeding history (1.43 [1.14-1.80]), paroxysmal vs. persistent AF (1.15 [1.02-1.29]), emergency room care setting vs. office (1.37 [1.18-1.59]), major, clinically relevant nonmajor, and minor bleeding (10.02 [7.19-13.98], 2.70 [2.24-3.25] and 1.90 [1.61-2.23]), stroke/SE (4.09 [2.55-6.56]), MI (2.74 [1.69-4.43]), and left atrial appendage procedures (4.99 [1.82-13.70]) were predictors of discontinuation. Age (0.84 [0.81-0.88], per 10-year increase), history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (0.81 [0.71-0.93]), diabetes (0.88 [0.80-0.97]), weeks from AF onset to treatment (0.96 [0.93-0.99] per week), and permanent vs. persistent AF (0.73 [0.63-0.86]) were predictors of lower discontinuation rates.ConclusionsIn GARFIELD-AF, the rate of discontinuation was 13.0%. Discontinuation for ≥7 consecutive days was associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and MI risk. Caution should be exerted when considering any OAC discontinuation beyond 7 days.