scholarly journals Antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and mechanical heart valves

2012 ◽  
Vol 87 (S1) ◽  
pp. S100-S107 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Eikelboom ◽  
Robert G. Hart
Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Piazza ◽  
Shelley Hurwitz ◽  
Brett Carroll ◽  
Samuel Z Goldhaber

Introduction: A perceived increased risk of bleeding is one of the most frequent reasons for failure to prescribe anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). We previously conducted a randomized controlled trial of alert-based computerized decision support (CDS) to increase prescription of antithrombotic therapy in 458 high-risk hospitalized patients with AF who were not being anticoagulated. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patients with a perceived high risk for bleeding would have a similar HAS-BLED score and rate of major and clinically-relevant non-major bleeding. Methods: To determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of these patients determined to be high-risk for bleeding, we analyzed the 248 patients in the alert group. Results: A perceived high risk of bleeding was the most common reason (77%) for omitting antithrombotic therapy. Median HAS-BLED scores were similar in these patients compared with those who were not deemed to have an increased bleeding risk (3 vs. 3, p=0.44). Despite being categorized as too high-risk for bleeding to receive antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention at the time of the alert, nearly 12% of these patients were ultimately prescribed anticoagulation over the ensuing 90 days. The frequency of major and clinically-relevant non-major bleeding was similar between the two groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, a perceived high risk of bleeding was the most common reason for failure to prescribe antithrombotic therapy after the CDS alert. History of a prior bleeding event or underlying bleeding disorder was not reflected in a higher HAS-BLED score. Implementation of an alert-based CDS with specific attention to assessment of bleeding risk and mitigation warrants further study to encourage adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guideline recommendations for stroke prevention in AF.


2022 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 831-836
Author(s):  
A. S. Gerasimenko ◽  
O. V. Shatalova ◽  
V. S. Gorbatenko ◽  
V. I. Petrov

Aim. To study the frequency of prescribing antithrombotic agents in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in real clinical practice, to evaluate changes of prescriptions from 2012 till 2020.Material and methods. The medical records of inpatients (Form 003/y) with the diagnosis AF, hospitalized in the cardiological department were analyzed. According to the inclusion criteria, the patients were over 18 years of age, established diagnosis of non-valvular AF. There were two exclusion criteria: congenital and acquired valvular heart disease and prosthetic heart valves. In retrospective analysis we have included 263 case histories in 2012, 502 ones in 2016 and 524 in 2020. CHA2DS2-VASc score was used for individual stroke risk assessment in AF. The rational use of the antithrombotic therapy was evaluated according with current clinical practice guidelines at analyzing moment.Results. During period of observation the frequency of antiplatelet therapy significantly decreased from 25,5% to 5,5% (р<0.001), decreased the frequency of administration of warfarin from 71,9% to 18,3% (р<0.001). The frequency of use of direct oral anticoagulants increased in 2020 compared to 2016 (р<0.001). For patients with a high risk of stroke anticoagulant therapy was administered in 71.8% of cases in 2012, 88.5% in 2016 and 92.5% in 2020. Before discharge from hospital majority of patients (72%) achieved a desired minimum international normalized ratio (INR) from 2.0 to 3.0 in 2012. In 2016 and 2020 an only 33% and 40.6% of patients achieved INR (2.0-3.0).Conclusion. Doctors have become more committed to following clinical guidelines during the period of the investigation. In 2020 antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation was suitable according to current clinical guidelines.


2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan S. Go ◽  
Margaret C. Fang ◽  
Daniel E. Singer

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 424-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Kovacs ◽  
Marc Rodger ◽  
Philip S. Wells ◽  
Shannon M. Bates ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
...  

Abstract Background It remains uncertain if patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves requiring interruption of warfarin for procedures benefit from post-procedure anticoagulant bridging therapy. Methods In order to determine the efficacy and safety of postoperative LMWH bridging, we conducted a multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial of patients with atrial fibrillation or a mechanical heart valve who require interruption of warfarin for a planned procedure. We excluded patients with active bleeding within 30 days, platelet count <100 x10⁹/L, spinal, cardiac or neurosurgery, life expectancy <3months, creatinine clearance <30ml/min, multiple mechanical valves or a Starr-Edwards valve, mechanical valve with history of stroke or TIA, or a history of heparin induced thrombocytopenia. The last dose of warfarin was given 6 days prior to the procedure. All patients received pre-procedure bridging therapy with dalteparin 200 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU) subcutaneously in the morning day-3 and day-2 then dalteparin 100 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU) subcutaneously 24 hours pre-procedure. Warfarin was resumed in the evening of the procedure at twice the usual dose for the first two days and then titrated according to INR. After the procedure (same day or next day), when hemostasis had been achieved, patients were randomized to receive dalteparin or placebo for at least 4 days and until the INR was greater than 1.9. Randomization was stratified by presence of a mechanical valve, by the post-procedure risk for major bleeding, and by centre. For patients at high risk for post-procedure major bleeding, dalteparin or placebo was administered at a fixed daily dose of 5000 IU. For patients at low risk for post-procedure major bleeding, dalteparin or placebo was administered at a daily dose of 200 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU). The primary analysis was a comparison of the proportion of patients who had major thromboembolism (stroke, proximal DVT, PE, MI, peripheral embolism) over 90 days by Chi-squared test according to the intention to treat principle. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, all cause mortality and a composite outcome of major thromboembolism and major bleeding. Results Starting in October 2006 we randomized a total of 1471 patients of whom 1167 had atrial fibrillation (without mechanical heart valves) and 304 had mechanical valves (99 also had atrial fibrillation). Last follow up was completed in May 2016. Baseline characteristics were similar between the LMWH and the placebo groups (see Table 1). Due to a randomization program system error at two centres more atrial fibrillation patients were randomized to dalteparin rather than to placebo. Major thromboembolism occurred in 6/820 (0.71%) dalteparin patients and 7/650 (1.11%) placebo patients. Major post-procedure bleeding occurred in 12 (1.46%) dalteparin patients and 16 (2.46%) placebo patients. Findings were similar in patients with atrial fibrillation alone and in patients with mechanical heart valves (with or without atrial fibrillation) (Table 2). Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation and/or mechanical heart valves who had warfarin interrupted for a procedure there was no benefit from post-procedure LMWH bridging. Disclosures Kovacs: Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development: Research Funding. Wells:Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria. Schulman:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document