Dataset Information

Impact of oral anticoagulation on the association between frailty and clinical outcomes in people with atrial fibrillation: nationwide primary care records on treatment analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

People with atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently live with frailty, which increases the risk of mortality and stroke. This study reports the association between oral anticoagulation (OAC) and outcomes for people with frailty, and whether there is overall net benefit from treatment in people with AF.

Methods and results

Retrospective open cohort electronic records study. Frailty was identified using the electronic frailty index. Primary care electronic health records of 89 996 adults with AF and CHA2DS2-Vasc score of ≥2 were linked with secondary care and mortality data in the Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD) from 1 January 1998 to 30 November 2018. The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, systemic embolism, or major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, all-cause mortality, transient ischaemic attack, and falls. Of 89 996 participants, 71 256 (79.2%) were living with frailty. The prescription of OAC increased with degree of frailty. For patients not prescribed OAC, rates of the primary outcome increased alongside frailty category. Prescription of OAC was associated with a reduction in the primary outcome for each frailty category [adjusted hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, no OAC as reference; fit: vitamin K antagonist (VKA) 0.69, 0.64-0.75, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) 0.42, 0.33-0.53; mild frailty: VKA 0.52, 0.50-0.54, DOAC 0.57, 0.52-0.63; moderate: VKA 0.54, 0.52-0.56, DOAC 0.57, 0.52-0.63; severe: VKA 0.48, 0.45-0.51, DOAC 0.58, 0.52-0.65], with cumulative incidence function effects greater for DOAC than VKA.

Conclusion

Frailty among people with AF is common. The OAC was associated with a reduction in the primary endpoint across all degrees of frailty.

SUBMITTER: Wilkinson C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9326851 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to describe clinical outcomes among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindications to oral anticoagulation (OAC).BackgroundTreatment with OAC prevents stroke and death in patients with AF, but may be contraindicated among patients at high bleeding risk.MethodsThis was an observational, longitudinal analysis of a nationally representative 5% Medicare sample of patients with chronic AF and CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category) score ≥2. They were stratified by both the presence of high bleeding risk contraindications to OAC and by OAC use. We assessed 3-year ischemic and bleeding outcomes using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for relevant patient characteristics.ResultsAmong 26,684 AF patients not treated with OAC, 8,283 (31%) had a high bleeding risk contraindication, primarily a blood dyscrasia (75%) or history of gastrointestinal bleeding (40%). Without OAC, patients with contraindications had worse ischemic and bleeding outcomes at 3 years compared with those without contraindications. We also identified 12,454 patients with OAC contraindications who received OAC. Compared with patients not receiving OAC, use of OAC was associated with reduced mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 0.83), stroke (adjusted HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.99), and all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.96) but increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted HR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.72).ConclusionsHigh bleeding risk contraindications to OAC are common among older patients with AF, and these patients have higher mortality compared with untreated patients without OAC contraindications. The use of OAC in these patients is associated with lower rates of all-cause stroke, hospitalization, and death but higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage.

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:Background/objectivesOral anticoagulation (OAC) is challenging in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who are often frail and have cognitive impairment. We examined the characteristics of older NVAF patients associated with higher odds of physical and cognitive impairments. We also examined if these high-risk patients have different OAC prescribing patterns and their satisfaction with treatment because it may impact optimal management of their NVAF.MethodsThe patients in the Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements in Atrial Fibrillation (SAGE-AF study cohort 2016-2018) had NVAF, were aged 65 and older, and eligible for the receipt of OAC. Measures included frailty (Fried Frailty scale), cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment Battery), OAC prescribing and type (direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC] or vitamin K antagonist [VKA]), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), bleeding, stroke risk, and treatment benefit (Anti-Clot Treatment Scale).ResultsPatients (n = 1,244) were 49% female, aged 76 (standard deviation = 7) years. A total of 14% were frail, and 42% had cognitive impairment. Frailty and cognitive impairment co-occurred in 9%. Odds of having both impairments versus none were higher with depression (odds ratio [OR] = 4.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.59-8.26), older age (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.29-1.88), lower education (OR = 3.81; 95%CI = 2.13-6.81), race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White (OR = 7.94; 95% CI = 4.34-14.55), bleeding risk (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.12-1.81), and stroke risk (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.13-1.62). OAC prescribing was not associated with CI and frailty status. Among patients taking OACs (85%), those with both impairments were more likely to take DOAC than VKA (OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.01-2.80). Having both impairments (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.08-3.27) or cognitive impairment (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.09-2.24) was associated with higher odds of reporting lower treatment benefit.ConclusionIn a large cohort of older NVAF patients, half were frail or cognitively impaired, and 9% had both impairments. We highlight the characteristics of patients who may benefit from cognitive and physical function screenings to maximize treatment and enhance prognosis. Finally, the co-occurrence of impairment was associated with low perceived benefit of treatment that may impede optimal management.

Project description:BackgroundPost-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery. Recent studies had shown this phenomenon is no longer considered transitory and is associated with higher risk of thromboembolic events or death. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyze previous studies comparing oral anticoagulation therapy with no anticoagulation, regarding these long-term outcomes.MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database were systematically searched to identify the studies comparing the risk of stroke, or thromboembolic events or mortality of POAF patients who received anticoagulation compared with those who were not anticoagulated. Incidence of stroke, thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality were evaluated up to 10 years after surgery. Time-to-event outcomes were collected through hazard ratio (HR) along with their variance and the early endpoints using frequencies or odds ratio (OR). Random effect models were used to compute statistical combined measures and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated through Q statistic-related measures of variance (Tau2, I2, Chi-squared test).ResultsEight observational cohort studies were selected, including 15,335 patients (3492 on Oral Anticoagulants (OAC) vs 11,429 without OAC) that met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Patients had a wide gender distribution (38.6-82.3%), each study with a mean age above 65 years (67.5-85). Vitamin K antagonists were commonly prescribed anticoagulants (74.3-100%). OAC was associated with a protective impact on all-cause mortality at a mean of 5.0 years of follow-up (HR is 0.85 [0.72-1.01]; p = 0.07; I2 = 48%). Thromboembolic events did not differ between the two treatment arms (HR 0.68 [0.40-1.15], p = 0.15).ConclusionCurrent literature suggests a possibly protective impact of OAC therapy for all-cause mortality in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. However, it does not appear to impact thromboembolism rate.

Project description:Whereas insurance status has been previously associated with care patterns, little is currently known about the association between Medicaid insurance and the clinical characteristics, treatment, or outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).We used data from adults with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF), a national outpatient registry conducted at 176 community, multispecialty sites. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients prescribed any oral anticoagulation (OAC; warfarin or novel oral anticoagulants [NOAC]). Secondary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients prescribed NOACs (dabigatran or rivaroxaban); time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin users, all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleed. Of 10 133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) had Medicaid insurance. Medicaid patients were similarly likely to receive OAC at baseline (72.8% vs 76.3%; unadjusted P=0.079), but less likely to receive NOAC at baseline or follow-up (12.1% vs 16.3%; unadjusted P=0.019). After risk adjustment, Medicaid status was associated with lower use of OAC at baseline among patients with high stroke risk (odds ratio [OR]=0.68; 95% CI=0.49, 0.94), but was not associated with OAC use overall (OR=0.82; 95% CI=0.61, 1.09). Among warfarin users, median TTR was lower among Medicaid patients (60% vs 68%; P<0.0001; adjusted TTR difference, -2.9; 95% CI=-5.7, -0.2; P=0.04). Use of an NOAC over 2 years of follow-up was not statistically different by insurance. Compared with non-Medicaid patients, Medicaid patients had higher unadjusted rates of mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding; however, these differences were attenuated following adjustment for clinical characteristics.In a contemporary AF cohort, use of OAC overall and use of NOACs were not significantly lower among Medicaid patients relative to others. However, among warfarin users, Medicaid patients spent less time in therapeutic range compared with those with other forms of insurance.