Uninterrupted anticoagulation during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: no difference in major bleeding and stroke between direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Maximilian Brockmeyer ◽  
Yingfeng Lin ◽  
Claudio Parco ◽  
Athanasios Karathanos ◽  
Torben Krieger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Impact of direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients on dialysis: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Sakurai
Keyword(s):  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Clinical Endpoints ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulants have been demonstrated to have advantages in several patient populations compared with warfarin. However, the safety and efficacy are controversial between direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with chronic kidney disease, especially on dialysis, who have been excluded from randomised controlled trials. Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants as compared to warfarin in patients on dialysis. Methods A meta-analysis was conducted on clinical studies in patients requiring oral anticoagulation and dialysis. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were queried for the terms “dialysis”, “warfarin”, and “apixaban OR dabigatran OR rivaroxaban OR edoxaban”. The same terms or relevant studies were also queried on the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health and relevant reviews. The clinical endpoints were stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Results Six observational studies (18487 patients) were included in this study. The risk of major bleeding (odds ratio (OR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.65; p<0.01) was lower in patients on direct oral anticoagulants compared to those on warfarin, whereas the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (OR0.63; 95% CI 0.30–1.33; p=0.23) was similar between the two types of anticoagulant. Conclusions Direct oral anticoagulants are associated with a lower risk of major bleeding and a similar risk of stroke/systemic embolism compared to warfarin in patients on dialysis. To validate these findings, randomised controlled trials are warranted. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Valerio Mariani ◽  
Michele Magnocavallo ◽  
Martina Straito ◽  
Agostino Piro ◽  
Paolo Severino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as first-line anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in patients with cancer and AF the efficacy and safety of DOACs are not well established. Objective We performed a meta-analysis comparing available data regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in cancer patients with non-valvular AF. Methods An online search of Pubmed and EMBASE libraries (from inception to May, 1 2020) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Nine studies were considered eligible for the meta-analysis involving 46,424 DOACs users and 182,797 VKA users. Results The use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of systemic embolism or any stroke (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52–0.81; p 0.001), ischemic stroke (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.95; p 0.007) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52–0.71; p 0.00001) as compared to VKA group. DOAC use was associated with significantly reduced risks of major bleeding (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50–0.92; p 0.01) and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47–0.88; p 0.006). Compared to VKA, DOACs provided a non-statistically significant risk reduction of the outcomes major bleeding or non-major clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78–1.13; p 0.50) and any bleeding (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; p 0.24). Conclusions In comparison to VKA, DOACs were associated with a significant reduction of the rates of thromboembolic events and major bleeding complications in patients with AF and cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.

scholarly journals Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e041819
Author(s):  
Emmanouil Charitakis ◽  
Lars O Karlsson ◽  
Kostantinos Rizas ◽  
Henrik Almroth ◽  
Anders Hassel Jönsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Separate Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Catheter ablation (CA) of AF is an increasingly offered therapeutic approach, primary to relieve AF-related symptoms. Despite the development of new ablation approaches, there is no consensus regarding the most efficient ablation strategy. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy and safety of all different CA approaches for the treatment of patients with paroxysmal (PAF) and non-PAF (non-PAF).Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of different CA approaches for the treatment of PAF and non-PAF, through the final search date of 1 March 2020. Information sources will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be the efficacy (recurrence-free survival) and safety of different CA approaches for the treatment of AF. Secondary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and procedural time. An NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different catheter ablation approaches (such as pulmonary vein isolation alone or in combination with ablation lines, ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms, etc). In PAF, a separate analysis will be performed including different energy sources (such as radiofrequency, cryogenic and laser energy). Risk of bias assessment and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval will be needed because data are collected from previous studies. The results will be presented through peer-review journals and conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020169494.

Uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists during ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Brockmeyer ◽  
Y Lin ◽  
C Parco ◽  
A Karathanos ◽  
T Krieger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background Uninterrupted anticoagulation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (CAAF) became standard of care after positive results of trials investigating vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Previous studies and meta-analyses of uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) vs. VKA have given controversial results. We thus aimed to elucidate the risks and benefits of uninterrupted DOAC vs. VKA during CAAF in an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods Online databases were searched for RCTs comparing uninterrupted DOAC to VKA in patients undergoing CAAF until September 2019. Data from retrieved studies were analysed in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Primary safety outcome was major bleeding; primary efficacy outcome was stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Secondary outcomes included a composite of major bleeding and stroke or TIA, minor bleeding, acute cerebral lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (ACL) and mortality. Results Six eligible RCTs comprising 2,369 patients were included. Pooled meta-analysis showed no significant differences in DOAC vs. VKA concerning the rates of major bleeding (2.2% vs. 3.8%; odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30–1.56; p=0.37) and stroke or TIA (0.2% vs. 0.2%; OR 0.97, CI 0.20–4.72; p=0.97). There were no significant differences found in secondary outcomes (OR 0.73, p=0.49 for composite of major bleeding and stroke or TIA; OR 1.08, p=0.52 for minor bleeding; OR 1.12, p=0.59 for ACL; and OR=0.60, p=0.64 for all-cause mortality). Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that uninterrupted periprocedural anticoagulation with DOAC or VKA is characterized by a similar risk/benefit ratio in patients undergoing CAAF with comparable rates of major bleeding and stroke. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Medical faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Germany

scholarly journals Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Quick Guide

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Sikorska ◽  
James Uprichard ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Advance ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, have been the anticoagulants of choice for many years for patients with AF and other thrombotic conditions. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as alternatives represents a major advance in anticoagulation. DOACs have been found to be at least as safe and effective as vitamin K antagonists in randomised, controlled trials for stroke prevention in AF and the management of venous thromboembolism, with real-world data showing similar outcomes. With the availability of several agents, selecting the most appropriate DOAC can be challenging. The aim of the present article is to provide useful guidance on the implementation of DOAC treatment in clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document