Association of Oral Anticoagulation With Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation or Heart Failure: A Comparative Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Reddin C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478106 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) in the era of direct oral anticoagulants is not well characterized. Using data from American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-AFIB, we sought to evaluate oral anticoagulation (OAC) use at discharge among AF patients with concomitant HF. METHODS AND RESULTS:AF patients with a diagnosis of HF hospitalized from January 2013 to March 2017 were included. We compared patient characteristics and use of OAC at discharge among patients with reduced (redundant ejection fraction [EF], EF?40%), borderline (40%<EF<50%), and preserved (EF?50%) EF using multivariable mixed logistic regression models. Among 10?883 patients with AF and HF, 1790 (16.4%) had a reported contraindication to anticoagulation and were excluded from further analysis. Among 9093 patients eligible for OAC, 3499 (38.5%) had HF with reduced EF, 1062 (11.7%) had HF with borderline EF, and 4532 (49.8%) had HF with preserved EF. The median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 5 (Q1, Q3; 3, 6) among all patients and higher among those with HF with preserved EF than HF with reduced EF (5 [4, 6] versus 4 [3, 5]; P<0.0001). The proportion of eligible patients discharged on OAC was 94.9%, with 43.6% discharged on warfarin and 50.7% discharged on direct oral anticoagulants. A higher proportion of patients with HF with reduced EF and HF with borderline EF were discharged on direct oral anticoagulants than with HF with preserved EF, but the difference was small (52.8%, 53.1% versus 48.5%, respectively; P=0.0002). EF group was not significantly associated with a patient's OAC use at discharge. CONCLUSIONS:In the context of American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-AFIB, a quality improvement program, the rate of use of OAC at discharge in eligible AF patients with HF was almost 95%. To our knowledge, these rates represent some of the highest use of appropriate anticoagulation for patients in a national registry to date.
| S-EPMC6319668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) have superior safety and comparable efficacy profile compared to vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs), with more convenient dosing schemes. However, issues with adherence to the NOACs remain unsolved.AimsWe sought to investigate the adherence to oral anticoagulation (OAC) and baseline factors associated with poor adherence after ischaemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsWe recruited hospitalised patients (2013-2019) from two prospective stroke registries in Larissa and Helsinki University Hospitals and invited survived patients to participate in a telephone interview. We assessed adherence with the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) and defined poor adherence as a score of over 17. In addition to demographics, individual comorbidities, and stroke features, we assessed the association of CHA2DS2-VASc and SAMe-TT2R2 scores with poor adherence.ResultsAmong 396 patients (median age 75.0 years, interquartile range [IQR] 70-80; 57% men; median time from ischaemic stroke to interview 21 months [IQR 12-33]; median ARMS score 17 [IQR 17-19]), 56% of warfarin users and 44% of NOAC users reported poor adherence. In the multivariable regression model adjusted for site, sex, and age, poor adherence was independently associated with tertiary education, absence of heart failure, smoking history, use of VKA prior to index stroke, and prior ischaemic stroke. CHA2DS2-VASc and SAMe-TT2R2 scores were not associated with poor adherence.ConclusionsAdherence was poor in half of AF patients who survived an ischaemic stroke. Independent patient-related factors, rather than composite scores, were associated with poor adherence in these patients.KEY MESSAGESAdherence was poor in half of the atrial fibrillation patients who survived an ischaemic stroke.Independent patient-related factors rather than composite scores were associated with poor adherence.The findings support the importance of recognising adherence support as a crucial part of holistic patient care recommended by recent AF guideline.
| S-EPMC8439221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeOral anticoagulants (OACs) prevent stroke recurrence and vascular embolism in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Based on empirical consensus, current guidance recommends a "1-3-6-12 days" rule to resume OACs after AIS. This study investigated the suitability of guideline-recommended timing for OAC initiation.MethodsUsing data of 12,307 AF patients hospitalized for AIS, for the period 2012 to 2016, in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we constructed a sequence of cohorts of OAC users and propensity score-matched nonusers, creating one cohort on each day of OAC initiation for 30 days since admission. Composite outcome included effectiveness (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, and venous thromboembolism) and safety (intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hematuria) outcomes. Comparing with nonusers, we examined the risks in the early OAC use (within 1-3-6-12 days) or guideline-recommended delayed use. Indirect comparison between the early and delayed use was conducted using mixed treatment comparison.ResultsAcross the AIS severity, the risks of composite or effectiveness outcome were lower in OAC users than nonusers, and the risks were similar between the early and delayed use groups. In patients with severe AIS, early OAC use was associated with an increased risk of safety outcome, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.67 (confidence interval [CI]: 1·30-2·13) compared with nonusers and a HR of 1.44 (CI: 0·99-2·09) compared with the delayed use.ConclusionOur study findings support an early OAC initiation in AF patients with mild-to-moderate AIS and a routine delayed use of OACs can be considered in those with severe AIS to avoid a serious bleeding event.
| S-EPMC9251709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePrevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging. The advent of safer anticoagulation in the form of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has prompted exploration of prophylactic anticoagulation for all ESUS patients, rather than anticoagulating just those with documented atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent trials have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit, while observing increased bleeding. We modeled the economic impact of anticoagulating ESUS patients without documented AF across multiple geographies.MethodsCRYSTAL-AF trial data were used to assess ischaemic stroke event rates in ESUS patients confirmed AF-free after long-term monitoring. Anticipated bleeding event rates (including both minor and major bleeds) with aspirin, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were sourced from published meta-analyses, whilst a 30% ischaemic stroke reduction for both DOACs was assumed. Cost data for clinical events and pharmaceuticals were collected from the local payer perspective.ResultsCompared with aspirin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban resulted in 17.9 and 29.9 additional bleeding events per 100 patients over a patient's lifetime, respectively. Despite incorporating into our model the proposed 30% reduction in ischaemic stroke risk, both DOACs were cost-additive over patient lifetime, as the costs of bleeding events and pharmaceuticals outweighed cost savings associated with the reduction in ischaemic strokes. DOACs added £5953-£7018 per patient (UK), €6683-€7368 (Netherlands), €4933-€9378 (Spain), AUD$5353-6539 (Australia) and $26,768-$32,259 (US) of payer cost depending on the agent prescribed. Additionally, in the U.S. patient pharmacy co-payments ranged from $2468-$12,844 depending on agent and patient plan. In all settings, cost-savings could not be demonstrated even when the modelling assumed 100% protection from recurrent ischaemic strokes, due to the very low underlying risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in this population (1.27 per 100 patient-years).ConclusionsAnticoagulation of non-AF patients may cause excess bleeds and add substantial costs for uncertain benefits, suggesting a personalised approach to anticoagulation in ESUS patients.
| S-EPMC8015049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo investigate if patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) without clear indication for oral anticoagulant (OAC) due to perceived low stroke risk may benefit from OAC treatment when also dementia and intracerebral bleeding risks are considered.Methods and resultsRetrospective study of cross-matched national registries of all individuals in Sweden with a hospital diagnosis of AF between 2006 and 2014 (n = 456 960). Exclusion was made of patients with a baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score >1, not counting female sex, and of patients with previous diagnosis of dementia or intracranial bleeding. After exclusions, 91 254 patients remained in the study of whom 43% used OAC at baseline. Propensity score matching and falsification endpoints were used. Treatment with OAC was associated with lower risk of dementia after adjustment for death as a competing risk [subhazard ratio (sHR) 0.62 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.81]. Regarding the composite brain protection endpoint, OAC treatment was associated with an overall 12% lower risk (sHR 0.88, CI 0.72-1.00). This apparent benefit was restricted to patients aged >65 years, whereas OAC treatment of patients <60 years of age without risk factors appeared to do more harm than good.ConclusionLow-risk AF patients who take OAC have lower risk of dementia than those who do not use OAC. Patients age >65 years appear to benefit from OAC treatment irrespective of stroke risk score.
| S-EPMC6642728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are involved in oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment decisions. Understanding which OAC attributes AF patients value most could help optimize treatment.ObjectiveTo assess the relationship between patient's stroke knowledge and their preferences for specific OAC attributes.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted in patients with nonvalvular AF taking an OAC for stroke prevention in the United States, Canada, Germany, France, and Japan. Patients were asked about their stroke knowledge, perception of the seriousness of AF and concern about stroke, and to rank 7 OAC attributes in order of importance. A conjoint analysis was performed to determine the inherent value of 4 attributes.ResultsIn total, 937 patients (mean age [standard deviation] 54.3 [16.6] years; 37.1% female) participated. Of these, 19.5%, 27.9%, and 29.8% had good, moderate, and low stroke knowledge, respectively; 22.8% had no stroke knowledge. Overall, 39.4% of patients (47.5% with good stroke knowledge) perceived AF as very/extremely serious. The OAC attribute ranked as most important was stroke prevention followed by major bleeding risk, other side effects, dosing frequency, antidote availability, dietary restrictions, and use with/without food. In the conjoint analysis, stroke risk reduction was the most valued property, followed by reduction in major bleeding risk, less frequent administration, and administration with/without food. Preferences did not differ with level of stroke knowledge, perception of seriousness of AF, concern of stroke, or medication burden.ConclusionsMost AF patients consider efficacy and safety to be the most important OAC attributes, whereas dosing frequency was deemed as less important.
| S-EPMC6489774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo determine whether changing patterns of anticoagulant use in atrial fibrillation (AF) have impacted on stroke rates in England.Methods and resultsEnglish national databases, 2006-2016, were interrogated to assess stroke admissions and oral anticoagulant use. The number of patients with known AF increased linearly from 692 054 to 983 254 (prevalence 1.29% vs. 1.71%). Hospital episodes of AF-related stroke/100 000 AF patients increased from 80/week in 2006 to 98/week in 2011 and declined to 86/week in 2016 (2006-2011 difference 18.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.9-18.1, 2011-2016 difference -12.0, 95% CI -12.1 to -11.9). Anticoagulant use amongst patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2 increased from 48.0% to 78.6% and anti-platelet use declined from 42.9% to 16.1%; the greatest rate of change occurred in the second 5 year period (for anticoagulants 2006-2011 difference 4.8%, 95% CI 4.5-5.1%, 2011-2016 difference 25.8%, 95% CI 25.5-26.1%). After adjustment for AF prevalence, a 1% increase in anticoagulant use was associated with a 0.8% decrease in the weekly rate of AF-related stroke (incidence rate ratio 0.992, 95% CI 0.989-0.994). Had the use of anticoagulants remained at 2009 levels, 4068 (95% CI 4046-4089) more strokes would have been predicted in 2015/2016.ConclusionBetween 2006 and 2016, AF prevalence and anticoagulant use in England increased. From 2011, hospitalized AF-related stroke rates declined and were significantly associated with increased anticoagulant uptake.
| S-EPMC6110195 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5974258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThis study aimed to elucidate the risk for stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure (HF) according to HF type.Methods and resultsA total of 10 780 patients with atrial fibrillation were enrolled in a multicentre prospective registry and divided according to HF type: no-HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF) (HFpEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with reduced EF (HFrEF). Each group included 237 age-matched and sex-matched patients (age, 69.0 ± 10.3 years; men, 69.6%). The baseline characteristics, cumulative incidence, and hazard ratios for stroke/SE and major bleeding were compared across the groups. Patients with HF accounted for 10.3% of the total population; HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF represented 43.7%, 23.6%, and 32.7% of the patients with HF, respectively. The CHA2 DS2 -VASc score was significantly higher in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF groups than in the no-HF group. The annual stroke/SE incidence rates were 2.8%, 0.7%, 1.1%, and 0.9% in the HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF, and no-HF groups, respectively. The cumulative incidence of stroke/SE was significantly highest in the HFpEF group at 22.8 ± 10.0 months (P = 0.020). The stroke/SE risk was higher in the HFpEF group than in the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups (hazard ratio, 3.192; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-9.810; P = 0.043). E/e' value was an independent risk factor for stroke/SE. There were no significant differences in the incidence of major bleeding across the groups.ConclusionsThe stroke/SE risk was the highest in the HFpEF group and comparable between the HFmrEF and HFrEF groups.
| S-EPMC8006674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased thromboembolic risk, and they suffer more severe strokes with worse outcomes. Most thromboembolic complications of AF are eminently preventable with oral anticoagulation, and the increasing numbers of AF patients mean antithrombotic therapy is the most crucial management aspect of this common arrhythmia. Despite the proven efficacy of warfarin, a string of limitations have meant that it is underused by physicians and patients alike. This has prompted a search for new anticoagulants that could overcome many of the inconveniences of dose variability and anticoagulant monitoring associated with warfarin, but without sacrificing efficacy in thromboprophylaxis. The arrival of new oral anticoagulants has been complemented by improved risk stratification schemes, which permit clinicians to easily and reliably identify patients requiring anticoagulation and their bleeding risk. These advances in AF treatment will hopefully translate into improved outcomes for patients, especially as our experience with the new agents grows.
| S-EPMC4711491 | biostudies-other