Dataset Information

Comparing Outcomes in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 81,462 Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, the presence of symptoms can guide the decision between rate or rhythm control therapy, but it is still unclear if AF-related outcomes are determined by symptomatic status of their clinical presentation.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and metanalysis following the PRISMA recommendations on available studies that compared asymptomatic to symptomatic AF reporting data on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and thromboembolic events (TEs). We included studies with a total number of patients enrolled equal to or greater than 200, with a minimum follow-up period of six months.

Results

From the initial 5476 results retrieved after duplicates' removal, a total of 10 studies were selected. Overall, 81,462 patients were included, of which 21,007 (26%) were asymptomatic, while 60,455 (74%) were symptomatic. No differences were found between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients regarding the risks of all-cause death (odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32), and cardiovascular death (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39). No differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic groups were evident for stroke (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.77-1.93) and stroke/TE (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86-1.31) risks.

Conclusions

Mortality and stroke/TE events in AF patients were unrelated to symptomatic status of their clinical presentation. Adoption of management strategies in AF patients should not be based on symptomatic clinical status.

SUBMITTER: Sgreccia D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8432492 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsWomen with atrial fibrillation (AF) are under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies examined sex-specific outcomes of DOACs in AF.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2008 to November 2022. Sex-specific comparative outcomes of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) between oral anticoagulants were pooled using random effects models. P values for interaction were calculated to examine differences in results between sexes. RCTs and observational studies were meta-analysed separately.Results5 RCTs and 33 observational studies were included, totalling 1 085 931 women and 1 387 123 men. Meta-analyses showed that for both sexes, DOAC versus warfarin was generally associated with lower risk of stroke/SE, major bleeding and ICH; in DOAC-DOAC comparisons, rivaroxaban versus dabigatran had higher GIB risk. The only sex-specific difference observed was that when compared with warfarin, women had higher GIB risk with rivaroxaban (women: pooled risk ratio (pRR)=1.34, 95% CI=1.18 to 1.51; men: pRR=0.97, 95% CI=0.85 to 1.10; p value for interaction (p for interaction)<0.001) and possibly dabigatran (women: pRR=1.25, 95% CI=0.92 to 1.70; men: pRR=0.83, 95% CI=0.72 to 0.97; p-for-interaction=0.02). The sex difference in GIB remained for rivaroxaban when a Bonferroni-corrected significance level was used (α=0.003). No sex-specific GIB data for apixaban and edoxaban was available for the meta-analysis.ConclusionsFor both sexes, DOACs generally demonstrated favourable effectiveness and safety over warfarin. However, observational data suggested that women may have higher GIB risk with rivaroxaban and possibly dabigatran than warfarin. Further studies are warranted to verify our findings and elucidate sex-specific GIB risk with apixaban and edoxaban, of which the data is currently lacking.Prospero registration numberCRD42022325027.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the comparative efficacy and safety of antithrombotic treatments (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) at a standard adjusted dose (target international normalised ratio 2.0-3.0), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), ASA and clopidogrel) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and among subpopulations.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesA systematic literature search strategy was designed and carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the grey literature including the websites of regulatory agencies and health technology assessment organisations for trials published in English from 1988 to January 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials were selected for inclusion if they were published in English, included at least one antithrombotic treatment and involved patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation eligible to receive anticoagulant therapy.ResultsFor stroke or systemic embolism, dabigatran 150?mg and apixaban twice daily were associated with reductions relative to standard adjusted dose VKA, whereas low-dose ASA and the combination of clopidogrel plus low-dose ASA were associated with increases. Absolute risk reductions ranged from 6 fewer events per 1000 patients treated for dabigatran 150?mg twice daily to 15 more events for clopidogrel plus ASA. For major bleeding, edoxaban 30?mg daily, apixaban, edoxaban 60?mg daily and dabigatran 110?mg twice daily were associated with reductions compared to standard adjusted dose VKA. Absolute risk reductions with these agents ranged from 18 fewer per 1000 patients treated each year for edoxaban 30?mg daily to 24 more for medium dose ASA.ConclusionsCompared with standard adjusted dose VKA, new oral anticoagulants were associated with modest reductions in the absolute risk of stroke and major bleeding. People on antiplatelet drugs experienced more strokes compared with anticoagulant drugs without any reduction in bleeding risk. To fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of antithrombotic agents across the various subpopulations, rigorously conducted comparative studies or network meta-regression analyses of patient-level data are required.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO registry-CRD42012002721.