scholarly journals Management of Anticoagulant Treatment and Anticoagulation-Related Complications in Nonagenarians

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (03) ◽  
pp. 292-300
Author(s):  
Michela Giustozzi ◽  
Lana A. Castellucci ◽  
Geoffrey D. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Coagulation Cascade ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Treatment Needs ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant Treatment

AbstractGiven the aging population, the burden of age-dependent diseases is growing. Despite this, elderly patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials and little data are available on current anticoagulant management and outcomes in this unique population, especially those aged 90 years or older. There is uncertainty, and a fear of “doing harm,” that often leads to de-prescription of antithrombotic agents in nonagenarian patients. Decision-making concerning the use of anticoagulant treatment needs to balance the risk of thrombotic events against the risk of major bleeding, especially intracranial hemorrhage. In this perspective, the development of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), acting as direct and selective inhibitors of a specific step or enzyme of the coagulation cascade, has dramatically changed oral anticoagulant treatment. In fact, given the lower incidence of intracranial hemorrhage, the favorable overall efficacy and safety, and the lack of routine monitoring, DOACs are the currently recommended anticoagulant agents for the treatment of both atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism even in very elderly patients. However, given the limited data available on the management of anticoagulation in nonagenarians, a few unanswered questions remain. In this review, we focused on recent evidence for anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism along with management of anticoagulation-related bleeding in nonagenarians.

scholarly journals Anticoagulant treatment satisfaction with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret C. Fang ◽  
Alan S. Go ◽  
Priya A. Prasad ◽  
Jin-Wen Hsu ◽  
Dongjie Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Treatment Satisfaction ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Laboratory Monitoring ◽  
Routine Laboratory ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
The Difference

AbstractTreatment options for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) include warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are easier to administer than warfarin and do not require routine laboratory monitoring, few studies have directly assessed whether patients are more satisfied with DOACs. We surveyed adults from two large integrated health systems taking DOACs or warfarin for incident VTE occurring between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the validated Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS), divided into the ACTS Burdens and ACTS Benefits scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. Mean treatment satisfaction was compared using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. The effect size of the difference in means was calculated using a Cohen’s d (0.20 is considered a small effect and ≥ 0.80 is considered large). We surveyed 2217 patients, 969 taking DOACs and 1248 taking warfarin at the time of survey. Thirty-one point five percent of the cohort was aged ≥ 75 years and 43.1% were women. DOAC users were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment, with higher adjusted mean ACTS Burdens (50.18 v. 48.01, p < 0.0001) and ACTS Benefits scores (10.21 v. 9.84, p = 0.046) for DOACs vs. warfarin, respectively. The magnitude of the difference was small (Cohen’s d of 0.29 for ACTS Burdens and 0.12 for ACTS Benefits). Patients taking DOACs for venous thromboembolism were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment than were warfarin users, although the magnitude of the difference was small.

Direct Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients Aged 80 Years or Older With Atrial Fibrillation in a “Real-world” Nationwide Registry: Insights From the FANTASIIA Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-323
Author(s):  
Martín Ruiz Ortiz ◽  
Javier Muñiz ◽  
María Asunción Esteve-Pastor ◽  
Francisco Marín ◽  
Inmaculada Roldán ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Real World ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Cancer History

Objective: To describe major events at follow up in octogenarian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) according to anticoagulant treatment: direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Methods: A total of 578 anticoagulated patients aged ≥80 years with AF were included in a prospective, observational, multicenter study. Basal features, embolic events (stroke and systemic embolism), severe bleedings, and all-cause mortality at follow up were investigated according to the anticoagulant treatment received. Results: Mean age was 84.0 ± 3.4 years, 56% were women. Direct oral anticoagulants were prescribed to 123 (21.3%) patients. Compared with 455 (78.7%) patients treated with VKAs, those treated with DOACs presented a lower frequency of permanent AF (52.9% vs 61.6%, P = .01), cancer history (4.9% vs 10.9%, P = .046), renal failure (21.1% vs 32.2%, P = .02), and left ventricular dysfunction (2.4% vs 8.0%, P = .03); and higher frequency of previous stroke (26.0% vs 16.6%, P = .02) and previous major bleeding (8.1% vs 3.6%, P = .03). There were no significant differences in Charlson, CHA2DS2VASc, nor HAS-BLED scores. At 3-year follow up, rates of embolic events, severe bleedings, and all-cause death (per 100 patients-year) were similar in both groups (DOACs vs VKAs): 0.34 vs 1.35 ( P = .15), 3.45 vs 4.41 ( P = .48), and 8.2 vs 11.0 ( P = .18), respectively, without significant differences after multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-1.93, P = .19; HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.44-1.76, P = .72 and HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.53-1.33, P = .46, respectively). Conclusion: In this “real-world” registry, the differences in major events rates in octogenarians with AF were not statistically significant in those treated with DOACs versus VKAs.

scholarly journals Reversal Strategies for Intracranial Hemorrhage Related to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Medications

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alok Dabi ◽  
Aristides P. Koutrouvelis
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Coagulation Cascade ◽  
Reversal Agents ◽  
United States Food ◽  
Life Threatening

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a new class of anticoagulants that directly inhibit either thrombin or factor Xa in the coagulation cascade. They are being increasingly used instead of warfarin or other vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Adverse side effects of DOACs may result in hemorrhagic complications, including life-threatening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), though to a much lesser degree than VKAs. Currently there are relatively limited indications for DOACS but their usage is certain to expand with the availability of their respective specific reversal agents. Currently, only idarucizumab (antidote for dabigatran) has been United States Food and Drug Administration- (FDA-) approved, but others (andexanet-α and ciraparantag) may be approved in near future, and the development and availability of such reversal agents have the potential to dramatically change the current anticoagulant use by providing reversal of multiple oral anticoagulants. Until all the DOACs have FDA-approved reversal agents, the treatment of the dreaded side effects of bleeding is challenging. This article is an attempt to provide an overview of the management of hemorrhage, especially ICH, related to DOAC use.

scholarly journals Anticoagulation Challenges in Hematogeriatrics: Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Vs Vitamin k Antagonist in Elderly with Atrial Fibrillation

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1162-1162
Author(s):  
Desirée Campoy ◽  
Gonzalo Artaza ◽  
César A Velasquez ◽  
Tania Canals ◽  
Erik A Johansson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Frail Elderly ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Bleeding Events

BACKGROUND Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are increasingly used in patients with Non Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) for stroke prevention. However, Follow-Up (FU) and dosing these agents in the elderly can be challenging due to different factors, such as chronic kidney disease, frailty, falls, multifactorial anemia and concomitant polypharmacy. These factors in elderly patients predisposes to both thromboembolic and bleeding events once atrial fibrillation occurs. Therefore, balancing risks and benefits of antithrombotic strategies in older populations is crucial. Despite recent increases in DOAC use in NVAF, there are still limited data regarding DOACs effectiveness and safety in frail elderly patients. AIM To assess the effectiveness and safety according to DOAC or Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) in a cohort of elderly patients with NVAF. METHODS From April 2016 to April 2019, we consecutively included NVAF elderly patients (≥80 years-old) treated with DOAC or VKA in a prospective multicenter registry. Demographic, laboratory, frailty risk stratification and antithrombotic therapy data were collected. Patients had a minimum FU of 6 months. VKA patients had a standard FU through digital international normalized ratio (INR) control and the efficacy of therapy was determined by the time in therapeutic range (TTR) values from the preceding 6 months of treatment using Rosendaal's method. FU in DOAC patients was performed through structured and integral assessment following the Tromboc@t Working Group recommendations for management in patients receiving DOAC (Olivera et al, Med Clin 2018). Key practical management aspects are listed in the flow chart (Figure 1). Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS score) was assigned to each patient at the beginning and during the FU; patients were classified into three categories: non-frail (CFS 1-4), mild-to-moderately frail (CFS 5-6), and severely frail (CFS 7-9). RESULTS From a total of 1040 NVAF patients, 690 (63.5%) were treated with DOAC (61 dabigatran, 95 rivaroxaban, 254 edoxaban and 280 apixaban) and 350 with VKA. In the VKA group, the mean TTR was 52.8%. Demographic characteristics and CFS score are summarized in table 1. Kaplan-Meier analysis (median FU: 16.5 months) showed a significantly high incidence of stroke/systemic embolism among VKA patients vs DOAC patients (4.2 vs 0.5 events per 100 patient-years, p<0.001). Major bleeding in the DOAC group was significantly infrequent compared with VKA group (2.2 vs 8.9 events, p=0.001). In the DOAC group, 90% (n=20/22) of the major bleedings were gastrointestinal [16 rivaroxaban and 4 edoxaban]. However, in the VKA group 64% (n = 20/31) were gastrointestinal, 25.8% (n= 8/31) intracranial and 9.7% (n = 3/31) urogenital bleedings. We identified 365 very elderly patients (aged ≥ 90 years) of which 270 (39.1%) were DOAC patients and 95 (27.1%) VKA patients. In this subgroup of patients, after a multivariate regression analysis, the stroke/systemic embolism incidence was similar in both treatment groups regardless of the age, but major bleeding decreased significantly in DOAC group (adjusted HR 0.247, 95% CI 0.091-0.664). CONCLUSIONS Our data indicate that DOACs can be a good therapeutic option for stroke/systemic embolism prevention in frail elderly patients, showing low rates of stroke as well as bleeding events when a structured and integral FU is applied to anticoagulated patients. Further investigations are necessary to analyze the impact in the quality of life and net clinical benefit of anticoagulant therapy when a FU program is applied in elderly patients. Disclosures Sierra: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Switching to Another Oral Anticoagulant and Drug Discontinuation Among Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Different Direct Oral Anticoagulants

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107602961987024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine L. Baker ◽  
Amol D. Dhamane ◽  
Jigar Rajpura ◽  
Jack Mardekian ◽  
Oluwaseyi Dina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Study Population

We compared the risks of switching to another oral anticoagulant (OAC) and discontinuation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or dabigatran versus apixaban. Patients (≥65 years of age) with NVAF prescribed DOACs (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017) were identified from the Humana research database and grouped into DOAC cohorts. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate whether the risk for switching to another OAC or discontinuing index DOACs differed among cohorts. Of the study population (N = 38 250), 55.9% were prescribed apixaban (mean age: 78.6 years; 49.8% female), 37.3% rivaroxaban (mean age: 77.4 years; 46.7% female), and 6.8% dabigatran (mean age: 77.0 years; 44.0% female). Compared to patients prescribed apixaban, patients prescribed rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.92-2.25; P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 3.74; 95% CI, 3.35-4.18, P < .001) had a significantly higher risk of switching to another OAC during the follow-up; compared to patients prescribed apixaban, the risks of discontinuation were also higher for patients treated with rivaroxaban (HR: 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13, P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 1.29; 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001).

scholarly journals Rates and Determinants for the Use of Anticoagulation Treatment before Stroke in Patients with Known Atrial Fibrillation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 44-49
Author(s):  
Michela  Giustozzi ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Silvia Quattrocchi ◽  
Monica Acciarresi ◽  
Andrea Alberti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Antiplatelet Agents ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Anticoagulation Treatment

Introduction and Objective: Even though the introduction of less cumbersome anticoagulant agents has improved, the rates ofoverall anticoagulant treatment in eligible patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain to be defined. We aimed to assess the rates of and determinants for the use of anticoagulation treatment before stroke in patients with known AF since the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in clinical practice. Methods: Consecutive patients admitted to an individual stroke unit, from September 2013 through July 2019, for acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) with known AF before the event were included in the study. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of the use of anticoagulant treatment. Results: Overall, 155 patients with ischemic stroke/TIA and known AF were included in this study. Among 152 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score >1, 43 patients were not receiving any treatment, 47 patients were receiving antiplatelet agents, and the remaining 62 patients were on oral anticoagulants. Among 34 patients on DOAC, 13 were receiving a nonlabeled reduced dose and 18 out of 34 patients on vitamin K antagonists had an INR value <2 at the time of admission. Before stroke, only 34 out of 155 patients (21.9%) were adequately treated according to current guidelines. Previous stroke/TIA was the only independent predictor of the use of anticoagulant therapy. Conclusions: Only 21.9% of the patients hospitalized for a stroke or TIA with known AF before the event were adequately treated according to recent treatment guidelines. It is important to improve medical information about the risk of AF and the efficacy of anticoagulants in stroke prevention.

P4745Concomitant oral anticoagulant and antidepressant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and risk of stroke and bleeding: a population based cohort study

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J J Komen ◽  
P Hjemdahl ◽  
A K Mantel - Teeuwisse ◽  
O H Klungel ◽  
B Wettermark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Antidepressant Use

Abstract Background Anticoagulation treatment reduces the risk of stroke but increases the risk of bleeding in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Antidepressants use is associated with increased risk for stroke and bleeds. Objective To assess the association between antidepressant use in AF patients with oral anticoagulants and bleeding and stroke risk. Methods All AF patients newly prescribed with an oral anticoagulant in the Stockholm Healthcare database (n=2.3 million inhabitants) from July 2011 until 2016 were included and followed for one year or shorter if they stopped claiming oral anticoagulant treatment or had an outcome of interest. Outcomes were severe bleeds and strokes, requiring acute hospital care. During follow-up, patients were considered exposed to antidepressant after claiming a prescription for the duration of the prescription. With a time-varying Cox regression, we assessed the association between antidepressant use and strokes and bleeds, adjusting for confounders (i.e., age, sex, comorbidities, comedication, and year of inclusion). In addition, we performed a propensity score matched analysis to test the robustness of our findings. Results Of the 30,595 patients included after claiming a prescription for a NOAC (n=13,506) or warfarin (n=17,089), 4 303 claimed a prescription for an antidepressant during follow-up. A total of 712 severe bleeds and 551 strokes were recorded in the cohort. Concomitant oral anticoagulant and antidepressant use was associated with increased rates of severe bleeds (4.7 vs 2.7 per 100 person-years) compared to oral anticoagulant treatment without antidepressant use (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.12–1.80), but not significantly associated with increased stroke rates (3.5 vs 2.1 per 100 person-years, aHR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.93–1.62). No significant differences were observed between different oral anticoagulant classes (i.e., warfarin or NOAC) or different antidepressant classes (i.e., SSRI, TCA, or other antidepressant). Additional propensity-score matched analyses yielded similar results but showed a significantly increased risk for stroke (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.08–2.02). Incidence rates of strokes and bleeds Conclusion Concomitant use of an oral anticoagulant and an antidepressant, irrespective of type, is associated with an increased bleeding risk. Increased awareness and a critical consideration for the need of an antidepressant is recommended in this population. Acknowledgement/Funding Swedish Heart Lung Foundation

The Combination of Oral Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapies: Stay One Step Ahead

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 391-398
Author(s):  
Fabiana Lucà ◽  
Simona Giubilato ◽  
Stefania Angela Di Fusco ◽  
Angelo Leone ◽  
Stefano Poli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Antithrombotic drugs, which include antiplatelets and anticoagulants, are effective in prevention and treatment of many cardiovascular disorders such as acute coronary syndromes, stroke, and venous thromboembolism and are among the drugs most commonly prescribed worldwide. The advent of direct oral anticoagulants, which are safer alternatives to vitamin K antagonists and do not require laboratory monitoring, has revolutionized the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. The combination of oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy is required in many conditions of great clinical impact such as the coexistence of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease, with indication to percutaneous coronary intervention. However, strategies that combine anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies lead to a significant increase in bleeding rates and it is crucial to find the right combination in the single patient in order to optimize the ischemic and bleeding risk. The aim of this review is to explore the evidence and controversies regarding the optimal combination of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy through the consideration of past dogmas and new perspectives from recent clinical trials and to propose a tailored therapeutic approach, according to specific clinical scenarios and individual patient characteristics. In particular, we separately explored the clinical settings of stable and acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous revascularization in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document