Dataset Information

Association Between Inappropriately Dosed Anticoagulation Therapy With Stroke Severity and Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: Background Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is effective for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, some patients experience stroke despite OAC therapy, and knowledge about the impact of prior treatment quality is lacking. Methods and Results Patients with atrial fibrillation on OAC therapy who had a first-time ischemic stroke were identified in the Danish Stroke Registry (2005-2018). Patients treated with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy were compared according to the international normalized ratio just before stroke (international normalized ratio <2 [subtherapeutic], international normalized ratio 2-3 [therapeutic], international normalized ratio >3 [supratherapeutic]), and patients on underdosed, appropriately dosed, and overdosed direct OAC (DOAC) therapy were compared. Stroke severity was determined using the Scandinavia Stroke Scale (0-58 points), and the risk of very severe stroke (0-14 points) was analyzed by multivariable logistic regression. One-year mortality was determined using multivariable Cox regression. A total of 2319 patients with atrial fibrillation and stroke were included; 1196 were taking a VKA (subtherapeutic [46%], therapeutic [43%], supratherapeutic [11%]), and 1123 were taking DOAC (underdosed [23%], appropriately dosed [60%], and overdosed [17%]). Subtherapeutic and supratherapeutic VKA therapy (compared with therapeutic) and underdosed DOAC therapy (compared with appropriate and underdosed DOAC) patients were older, more often women, and more comorbid. Subtherapeutic VKA therapy was associated with very severe stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.06 [95% CI, 1.28-3.31]), whereas supratherapeutic VKA therapy was not (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.60-2.57]) compared with therapeutic VKA therapy. Patients on subtherapeutic and supratherapeutic VKA therapy had a higher 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.66 [95% CI, 1.29-2.13]); HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.08-2.22], respectively) than those on therapeutic VKA therapy. Treatment with underdosed or overdosed DOAC therapy was not associated with very severe stroke (OR, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.76-2.15]; OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.37-1.43], respectively) and was not associated with 1-year mortality (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.83-1.44]; HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.57-1.18], respectively) than appropriate DOAC. Conclusions Half of the patients with atrial fibrillation with stroke were on inappropriate OAC therapy. Subtherapeutic VKA was associated with worse stroke severity and higher mortality rate than therapeutic VKA therapy. Neither underdosed nor overdosed DOAC was associated with worse outcomes in adjusted models compared with appropriately dosed DOAC. This study supports DOAC as a first-line therapy over VKA.

SUBMITTER: Vinding NE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9075280 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Purpose: Once a stroke occurs in a patient with atrial fibrillation (AF), it is likely to be severe. Patients with newly diagnosed AF after stroke and those with known AF before stroke have different background characteristics, yet the difference in stroke severity has not been sufficiently evaluated. In the current study, we compared the stroke severity and in-hospital outcomes between these patient groups. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a database of 196 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF between January 2010 and October 2019. We divided the patients into two groups: patients with "newly diagnosed AF" and those with "known AF." We assessed the stroke severity using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score on admission and in-hospital outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at discharge. Results: The proportion of newly diagnosed AF was 33% (64/196). There were no differences in age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and past history of heart failure between patients with newly diagnosed AF and those with known AF. Patients with newly diagnosed AF were associated with a lower proportion of male sex (male; 50 vs. 67%, p < 0.05), a lower proportion of past history of stroke (12 vs. 35%, p < 0.01), a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score (median [interquartile range]; 3 [2-4] vs. 3.5 [3-5], p < 0.01), and a lower proportion of pre-stroke oral anticoagulation (5 vs. 59%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in the NIHSS score on admission (12 [4-19] vs. 9 [3-19]) or the mRS score at discharge (3 [1-5] vs. 3 [1-5]). After adjustment for relevant covariates, newly diagnosed AF was not associated with the NIHSS score on admission [adjusted common odds ratio (OR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-1.60] or the mRS score at discharge (adjusted common OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.88-3.18). After propensity score matching, newly diagnosed AF was not associated with the NIHSS score on admission (adjusted common OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73) and the mRS score at discharge (adjusted common OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.92-3.43). Conclusion: Stroke severity and in-hospital outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed AF did not differ from those in patients with known AF after adjustment for clinically relevant factors. The importance of detection of latent AF and subsequent anticoagulation in preventing severe stroke should be further emphasized.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute ischemic stroke, the association of prior anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with stroke severity, utilization of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), safety of IVT, and 3-month outcomes.MethodsThis was a cohort study of consecutive patients (2014-2019) on anticoagulation versus those without (controls) with regard to stroke severity, rates of IVT/mechanical thrombectomy, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at 3 months.ResultsOf 8,179 patients (mean [SD] age, 79.8 [9.6] years; 49% women), 1,486 (18%) were on VKA treatment, 1,634 (20%) on DOAC treatment at stroke onset, and 5,059 controls. Stroke severity was lower in patients on DOACs (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 4, [interquartile range 2-11]) compared with VKA (6, [2-14]) and controls (7, [3-15], p < 0.001; quantile regression: β -2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.6 to -1.7). The IVT rate in potentially eligible patients was significantly lower in patients on VKA (156 of 247 [63%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.90) and particularly in patients on DOACs (69 of 464 [15%]; aOR 0.06; 95% CI 0.05-0.08) compared with controls (1,544 of 2,504 [74%]). sICH after IVT occurred in 3.6% (2.6-4.7%) of controls, 9 of 195 (4.6%; 1.9-9.2%; aOR 0.93; 95% CI 0.46-1.90) patients on VKA and 2 of 65 (3.1%; 0.4-10.8%, aOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.28-1.12) of those on DOACs. After adjustments for prognostic confounders, DOAC pretreatment was associated with a favorable 3-month outcome (aOR 1.24; 1.01-1.51).InterpretationPrior DOAC therapy in patients with AF was associated with decreased admission stroke severity at onset and a remarkably low rate of IVT. Overall, patients on DOAC might have better functional outcome at 3 months. Further research is needed to overcome potential restrictions for IVT in patients taking DOACs. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:42-53.

Project description:Background and purposeAtrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are common sources of cardioembolism. While oral anticoagulation is strongly recommended for atrial fibrillation, there are marked variations in guideline recommendations for HFrEF due to uncertainty about net clinical benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the comparative association of oral anticoagulation with stroke and other cardiovascular risk in populations with atrial fibrillation or HFrEF in sinus rhythm and identify factors mediating different estimates of net clinical benefit.MethodsPubMed and Embase were searched from database inception to November 20, 2019 for randomized clinical trials comparing oral anticoagulation to control. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate a pooled treatment-effect overall and within atrial fibrillation and HFrEF trials. Differences in treatment effect were assessed by estimating I2 among all trials and testing the between-trial-population P-interaction. The primary outcome measure was all stroke. Secondary outcome measures were ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, mortality, myocardial infarction, and major hemorrhage.ResultsTwenty-one trials were eligible for inclusion, 15 (n=19 332) in atrial fibrillation (mean follow-up: 23.1 months), and 6 (n=9866) in HFrEF (mean follow-up: 23.9 months). There were differences in primary outcomes between trial populations, with all-cause mortality included for 95.2% of HFrEF trial population versus 0.38% for atrial fibrillation. Mortality was higher in controls groups of HFrEF populations (19.0% versus 9.6%) but rates of stroke lower (3.1% versus 7.0%) compared with atrial fibrillation. The association of oral anticoagulation with all stroke was consistent for atrial fibrillation (odds ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42–0.63]) and HFrEF (odds ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47–0.79]; I2=12.4%; P interaction=0.31). There were no statistically significant differences in the association of oral anticoagulation with cardiovascular events, mortality or bleeding between populations.ConclusionsThe relative association of oral anticoagulation with stroke risk, and other cardiovascular outcomes, is similar for patients with atrial fibrillation and HFrEF. Differences in the primary outcomes employed by trials in HFrEF, compared with atrial fibrillation, may have contributed to differing conclusions of the relative efficacy of oral anticoagulation.

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.

Project description:ImportanceAnticoagulation management services (AMSs; ie, warfarin clinics) have evolved to include patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown whether DOAC therapy management services improve outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).ObjectiveTo compare outcomes associated with 3 DOAC care models for preventing adverse anticoagulation-related outcomes among patients with AF.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 44 746 adult patients with a diagnosis of AF who initiated oral anticoagulation (DOAC or warfarin) between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, in 3 Kaiser Permanente (KP) regions. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2021 through May 2023.ExposuresEach KP region used an AMS to manage warfarin but used distinct approaches to DOAC care: (1) usual care (UC) by the prescribing clinician, (2) UC plus an automated population management tool (PMT), or (3) pharmacist-managed AMS care. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were estimated. Direct oral anticoagulant care models were first indirectly compared using warfarin as a common comparator within each region and then directly compared across regions.Main outcomes and measuresPatients were followed up until the first occurrence of an outcome (composite of thromboembolic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeding, or death), discontinuation of KP membership, or December 31, 2020.ResultsOverall, 44 746 patients were included: 6182 in the UC care model (3297 DOAC; 2885 warfarin), 33 625 in the UC plus PMT care model (21 891 DOAC; 11 734 warfarin), and 4939 in the AMS care model (2089 DOAC; 2850 warfarin). Baseline characteristics (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [10.6] years, 56.1% male, 67.2% non-Hispanic White, median CHA2DS2-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, female sex] score of 3 [IQR, 2-5]) were well balanced after IPTW. Over a median follow-up of 2 years, patients who received the UC plus PMT or AMS care model did not have significantly better outcomes than those who received UC. The incidence rate of the composite outcome was 5.4% per year for DOAC and 9.1% per year for warfarin for those in the UC group, 6.1% per year for DOAC and 10.5% per year for those in the UC plus PMT group, and 5.1% per year for DOAC and 8.0% per year for those in the AMS group. The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome comparing DOAC vs warfarin were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-1.05) in the UC group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90) in the UC plus PMT group, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in the AMS group (P = .62 for heterogeneity across care models). When directly comparing patients receiving DOAC, the IPTW-adjusted HR was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) for the UC plus PMT group vs the UC group and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.02) for the AMS group vs the UC group.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study did not find appreciably better outcomes for patients receiving DOAC who were managed by either a UC plus PMT or AMS care model compared with UC.

Dataset Information

Association Between Inappropriately Dosed Anticoagulation Therapy With Stroke Severity and Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets