Improving anticoagulation management in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fanikos JR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3638402 | biostudies-other | 2013 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Improving anticoagulation management in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Fanikos John R JR Atay Julie K JK Connors Jean M JM
P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management 20130301 3
Three agents have recently been approved to reduce the risk of stroke and embolism, and one agent is in phase 3 trials. These drugs cause less serious bleeding and are simpler to manage, compared with warfarin, but they are not without their risks. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Its increasing prevalence, particularly among the elderly, renders it one of the most serious current medical epidemics. Several management questions confront the clinician treating a patient with AF: Should the condition be treated? Is the patient at risk of death or serious morbidity as a result of this diagnosis? If treatment is necessary, is rate control or rhythm control superior? Which patients need anticoagulation therapy, and for how long? This review of articles obtained by a search of the PubMed and MEDLINE databases presents the available evidence that can guide the clinician in answering these questions. After discussing the merits of available therapy, including medications aimed at controlling rate, rhythm, or both, we focus on the present status of ablative therapy for AF. Catheter ablation, particularly targeting the pulmonary veins, is being increasingly performed, although the precise indications for this approach and its effectiveness and safety are being actively investigated. We briefly discuss other invasive options that are less frequently used, such as pacemakers, defibrillators, left atrial appendage closure devices, and the surgical maze procedure.
| S-EPMC2704137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Warfarin has had a thin margin of benefit over risk for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with ESRD because of higher bleeding risks and complications of therapy. The successful use of warfarin has been dependent on the selection of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at relatively high risk of stroke and systemic embolism and lower risks of bleeding over the course of therapy. Without such selection strategies, broad use of warfarin has not proven to be beneficial to the broad population of patients with ESRD and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In a recent meta-analysis of use of warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and ESRD, warfarin had no effect on the risks of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.82; P=0.65) or mortality (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.13; P=0.60) but was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.56; P<0.01). In pivotal trials, novel oral anticoagulants were generally at least equal to warfarin for efficacy and safety in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and mild to moderate renal impairment. Clinical data for ESRD are limited, because pivotal trials excluded such patients. Given the very high risk of stroke and systemic embolism and the early evidence of acceptable safety profiles of novel oral anticoagulants, we think that patients with ESRD should be considered for treatment with chronic anticoagulation provided that there is an acceptable bleeding profile. Apixaban is currently indicated in ESRD for this application and may be preferable to warfarin given the body of evidence for warfarin and its difficulty of use and attendant adverse events.
| S-EPMC5108189 | biostudies-other
Project description:Purpose of reviewThis review aims to discuss the use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo coronary stenting with emphasis on the use of double vs triple therapy.Recent findingsWhen combined with systemic anticoagulation, dual antiplatelet therapy results in an unacceptable increase in bleeding without any improvement in prevention of thrombotic events. Direct oral anticoagulants combined with single antiplatelet therapy have reduced bleeding compared with warfarin plus dual antiplatelet therapy. Triple anticoagulation therapy with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants leads to an excess of bleeding and is not superior in preventing thrombotic events. Recent randomized, controlled trials have shown a significant reduction in major bleeding events in patients treated with dual antithrombotic therapy compared with triple therapy without any difference in efficacy. These findings call into question whether triple therapy should remain a part of standard practice.
| S-EPMC7347083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is associated with increased periprocedural risks after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Patterns of anticoagulation management involving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have not been characterized.HypothesisAnticoagulation strategies and outcomes differ by anticoagulant type in patients undergoing CIED implantation.MethodsUsing the nationwide Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we assessed how atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing CIED implantation were cared for and their subsequent outcomes. Outcomes were compared by oral anticoagulant therapy (none, warfarin, or NOAC) as well as by anticoagulation interruption status.ResultsAmong 9129 AF patients, 416 (5%) underwent CIED implantation during a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range, 24-36). Of these, 60 (14%) had implantation on a NOAC. Relative to warfarin therapy, those on a NOAC were younger (70.5 years [range, 65-77.5 years] vs 77 years [range, 70-82 years]), had less valvular heart disease (15.0% vs 31.3%), higher creatinine clearance (67.3 [range, 59.7-99.0] vs 65.8 [range, 50.0-91.6]), were more likely to have persistent AF (26.7% vs 22.9%), and use concomitant aspirin (51.7% vs 35.2%). OAC therapy was commonly interrupted for CIED in 64% (n = 183 of 284) of warfarin patients and 65% (n = 39 of 60) of NOAC patients. Many interrupted patients received intravenous bridging anticoagulation: 33/183 (18%) interrupted warfarin and 4/39 (10%) interrupted NOAC patients. Thirty-day periprocedure bleeding and stroke adverse events were infrequent.ConclusionsManagement of anticoagulation among AF patients undergoing CIED implantation is highly variable, with OAC being interrupted in more than half of both warfarin- and NOAC-treated patients. Bleeding and stroke events were infrequent in both warfarin and NOAC-treated patients.
| S-EPMC5638096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding.We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding.In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority).In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).
| S-EPMC4931686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOACs)-dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban-have been approved by the FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; however, no agents are currently approved to reverse the anticoagulant effects of these TSOACs in cases of active bleeding. This review discusses the benefits and risks of these TSOACs from a clinician's perspective, with a focus on the interruption of treatment for either elective or emergent surgery, monitoring, and reversal of anticoagulation. Available coagulation assays are not ideal for monitoring the effects of TSOACs and do not provide reliable quantitative measurement of their anticoagulant effects. When necessary, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) may provide qualitative information on dabigatran, and prothrombin time (PT) may provide qualitative assessment of the presence of the factor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban and apixaban. Current recommendations for reversal of TSOACs are based largely on limited and sometimes conflicting data from in vitro or in vivo animal models, and clinical experience with these recommendations is also limited. Methods that have been investigated for effectiveness for reversal of the pharmacodynamic effects of the TSOACs include dialysis, activated charcoal, prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), and recombinant activated factor VII. It is important to note that even within a class of anticoagulant drugs, compounds respond differently to reversal agents; therefore, recommendations for one agent should not be extrapolated to another, even if they are from the same therapeutic class. New antidotes are being explored, including a mouse monoclonal antibody to dabigatran; andexanet alfa, a potential universal factor Xa inhibitor reversal agent; and a synthetic small molecule (PER977) that may be effective for the reversal of factor Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors. Given the short half-lives of TSOACs, watchful waiting, rather than reversal, may be the best approach in some circumstances.
| S-EPMC4264672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia worldwide with an estimated number of 2.7-6.1 million cases in the United States (US) alone. The incidence of AF is expected to increase 2.5 fold over the next 50 years in the US. The management of AF is complex and includes mainly three aspects; restoration of sinus rhythm, control of ventricular rate and prevention of systemic thromboembolism. AF as a cause of systemic embolization has been well known for many years, and majority of patients are on oral anticoagulants (OACs) to prevent this. Many times, a patient may not be in AF chronically, nor is the AF burden (the amount of time patient is in AF out of the total monitored time) calculated. We present three cases of new onset transient AF triggered by temporary stressors. We were able to restore normal sinus rhythm (NSR) with chemical cardioversion. As per 2014 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) recommendations, we started all three patients on OACs based on CHA2DS2VASc score ≥2. However, the patients refused long term OACs after restoration of NSR and correction of the temporary enticing stressors. In any case, the decision to start OACs would have had its own risks. Here we describe how antiarrhythmic drugs were used to maintain NSR, all while they were continuously monitored to determine the need to continue OACs.
| S-EPMC5538221 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend performing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation without interruption of a direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and to administer unfractionated heparin (UFH) for an activated clotting time (ACT) ≥300 seconds, by analogy with vitamin K antagonist (VKA). Nevertheless, pharmacological differences between DOACs and VKA, especially regarding ACT sensitivity and UFH response, prevent extrapolation from VKA to DOACs.HypothesisThe level of anticoagulation at the time of the procedure in uninterrupted DOAC-treated patients is unpredictable and would complicate intraprocedural UFH administration and monitoring.MethodsThis prospective study included interrupted DOAC-treated patients requiring AF ablation. Preprocedural DOAC concentration ([DOAC]), intraprocedural UFH administration, and ACT values were recorded. A cohort of DOAC-treated patients requiring flutter catheter ablation was considered to illustrate [DOAC] without DOAC interruption.ResultsForty-eight patients underwent AF and 14 patients underwent flutter ablation, respectively. In uninterrupted DOAC-treated patients, [DOAC] ranged from ≤30 to 466 ng/mL. When DOAC were interrupted, from 54 to 218 hours, [DOAC] were minimal (maximum: 36 ng/mL), preventing DOAC-ACT interference. Anyway, ACT values were poorly correlated with UFH doses (R 2 = 0.2256).ConclusionsOur data showed that uninterrupted DOAC therapy resulted in an unpredictable and highly variable initial level of anticoagulation before catheter ablation. Moreover, even with DOAC interruption preventing interference between DOAC, UFH, and ACT, intraprocedural UFH monitoring was complex. Altogether, our exploratory results call into question the appropriateness of transposing UFH dose protocols, as well as the relevance of ACT monitoring in uninterrupted DOAC-treated patients.
| S-EPMC6489798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Evaluation and improvement of the management of patients with atrial fibrillation in treatment with oral anticoagulants from primary health care. (2) Methods: prospective quasi-experimental study, conducted on 385 patients assisted with Atrial Fibrillation (AF) at the Las Fuentes Norte Health Center, before and after the implementation of actions to improve oral anticoagulants management from October 2015 to July 2017. (3) Results: The ACO-ZAR I study revealed that the population with AF presents a global prevalence of 1.7%, an indication of oral anticoagulants of 92.1%, undertreatment of 24%, suboptimal control of vitamin K antagonists of 43%, use of antiaggregant as primary prevention of 13.42%, and primary health care monitoring of 34%. The implementation of activities aimed at improving the management of oral anticoagulants in the ACO-ZAR II study achieves a reduction in undertreatment up to 16%, in the use of antiaggregant up to 9%, and in suboptimal control up to 30%, as well as an increase in control from primary health care up to 69.2% and of the penetrance of direct oral anticoagulants up to 28%. (4) Conclusions: In conclusion, the application of activities aimed at optimizing the management of oral anticoagulants in health center patients allowed the improvement of risk assessment and registration, undertreatment, use of antiaggregant, suboptimal control of vitamin K antagonists, control by primary health care center, and the penetrance of direct oral anticoagulants.
| S-EPMC9180454 | biostudies-literature