scholarly journals Prevention of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Stenting

Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 2125-2132
Author(s):  
Leonardo Knijnik ◽  
Manuel Rivera ◽  
Vanessa Blumer ◽  
Rhanderson Cardoso ◽  
Amanda Fernandes ◽  
...  

Background and Purpose— The optimal antithrombotic strategy to balance thromboembolic and bleeding events, especially acute stroke, for patients with atrial fibrillation following coronary stenting remains a matter of debate. We conducted a network meta-analysis to identify the antithrombotic regimen associated with the lowest rate of bleeding and thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation after coronary stenting. Methods— PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies of patients with atrial fibrillation after coronary stenting. The outcomes of interest were stroke, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events, mortality, and major bleeding. A network meta-analysis was performed comparing the available antithrombotic regimens in the literature. Results— Three randomized and 15 observational studies were included, with a total of 23 478 participants. Median follow-up was 2 years. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that vitamin K antagonist plus single antiplatelet therapy or direct-acting oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet therapy were the most effective regimens in preventing stroke. Direct-acting oral anticoagulant regimens were associated with lower major bleeding rates than vitamin K antagonist regimens. Regimens with dual antiplatelet therapy were associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction. Vitamin K antagonist plus dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a lower mortality and low-dose direct-acting oral anticoagulants with decreased major cardiovascular adverse events. Conclusions— Direct-acting oral anticoagulant regimens were associated with less major bleeding and major cardiovascular adverse events, but vitamin K antagonists were associated with decreased mortality and stroke. These results suggest that the decision of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention needs to be individualized.

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wengen Zhu ◽  
Zi Ye ◽  
Shilan Chen ◽  
Dexi Wu ◽  
Jiangui He ◽  
...  

Background and Purpose: Several observational studies have compared the effect of the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants to each other in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, confounding by indication is a major problem when comparing non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant treatments in some of these studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety between non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant by only including the propensity score matching studies. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and Ovid databases until May 2020 to identify relevant observational studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs of the reported outcomes were collected and then pooled by a random-effects model complemented with an inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model. Results: A total of 17 retrospective cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with dabigatran use, the use of rivaroxaban was significantly associated with increased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05–1.29]) and major bleeding (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.24–1.41]), whereas the use of apixaban was associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67–0.90]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.56–1.28]). Compared with rivaroxaban use, the use of apixaban was associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.54–0.73]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.67–1.04]). Reanalyses with the inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model produced similar results as the random-effects model. Conclusions: Current observational comparisons with propensity score matching methods suggest that apixaban might be a better choice compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fuwei Liu ◽  
Yunyao Yang ◽  
Winglam Cheng ◽  
Jianyong Ma ◽  
Wengen Zhu

Background: Recent observational studies have compared effectiveness and safety profiles between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, the confounders may exist due to the nature of clinical practice-based data, thus potentially influencing the reliability of results. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the effect of NOACs with warfarin based on the propensity score-based observational studies vs. randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Methods: Articles included were systematically searched from the PubMed and EMBASE databases until March 2021 to obtain relevant studies. The primary outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were extracted and then pooled by the random-effects model.Results: A total of 20 propensity score-based observational studies and 4 RCTs were included. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71–0.96]), rivaroxaban (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.75–0.85]), apixaban (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.65–0.86]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.60–0.83]) were associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism, whereas dabigatran (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65–0.87]), apixaban (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.56–0.67]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.45–0.74]) but not rivaroxaban (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84–1.00]) were significantly associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding based on the observational studies. Furthermore, the risk of major bleeding with dabigatran 150 mg was significantly lower in observational studies than that in the RE-LY trial, whereas the pooled results of observational studies were similar to the data from the corresponding RCTs in other comparisons.Conclusion: Data from propensity score-based observational studies and NOAC trials consistently suggest that the use of four individual NOACs is non-inferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF patients.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud El Iskandarani ◽  
Islam Shatla ◽  
Muhammad Khalid ◽  
Bara El Kurdi ◽  
Timir Paul ◽  
...  

Background: Current guidelines recommend against the use of direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of significant liver disease (LD) due to lack of evidence in safety and efficacy studies. However, recently studies have investigated the role of DOAC in comparison to Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in this category of patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this approach. Hypothesis: DOAC is safe and effective compared to VKA in AF with LD patients. Method: Unrestricted search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases performed from inception until June 1, 2020 for studies comparing DOAC with VKA including more than 100 AF patients with LD. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Result: A total of 5 studies (3 retrospective and 2 post hoc analysis) were included examining 39,064 patients with AF and LD (25,398 DOAC vs 13,669 VKA). DOAC is associated with lower risk of major bleeding compared to VKA with a HR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.47-0.98; I 2 =53%), all-cause mortality (HR 0.74;95% CI 0.59-0.94; I 2 =61%), and intracranial bleeding (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.40-0.58; I 2 =0). There was no significant difference in ischemic stroke risk (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47-1.14; I 2 =72%) and gastrointestinal bleeding risk (0.96; 95% CI 0.61-1.51; I 2 =41%) between DOAC and VKA. Conclusion: DOAC is non-inferior to VKA regarding ischemic stroke prevention in AF patients with LD. Moreover, DOAC is associated with a lower risk of major bleeding, intracranial bleeding and all-cause mortality. Further randomized trials are needed to validate our findings.


EP Europace ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 547-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daehoon Kim ◽  
Pil-Sung Yang ◽  
Eunsun Jang ◽  
Hee Tae Yu ◽  
Tae-Hoon Kim ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims To investigate the association between adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) and clinical outcomes and to determine the optimal cut-off level of NOAC adherence among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, we identified 96 197 patients with non-valvular AF who initiated NOAC or warfarin in 2013–16. We compared clinical outcomes between adherent [proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80%] vs. non-adherent (PDC <80%) NOAC users, and further with warfarin users. We assessed the outcomes according to different levels of adherence. The proportion of adherent NOAC users was 64.0%. Compared with non-adherent NOAC users, adherent NOAC users were at lower risks of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–0.79], and myocardial infarction (aHR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72–0.93), whereas there was no significant risk alteration for major bleeding (aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91–1.11). Compared with warfarin, non-adherent NOAC use failed to have better efficacy against ischaemic stroke/SE (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93–1.05) and rather had increased risk of myocardial infarction (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03–1.25). In NOAC users, the risks of adverse outcomes decreased according to gradual increase of adherence rates with the lowest risks in ≥90%, except for major bleeding in which there were no significant associations. Conclusions In an adherence level-dependent fashion, adherent use of NOAC showed better clinical outcomes without increasing bleeding risk. Maintaining ≥90% of adherence optimizes effectiveness of NOAC therapy without compromising its safety.


Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
João Carmo ◽  
Francisco M Costa ◽  
Jorge Ferreira ◽  
Miguel Mendes

Background: In the clinical trial RE-LY, dabigatran showed a better efficacy/safety profile in comparison with warfarin, but clinical trials are few representative of the real world. We aim to access if dabigatran in real-world patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) showed a better profile in comparison with warfarin, through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing with vitamin K antagonists. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched through December 2014. We include observational studies comparing dabigatran to warfarin for non-valvular AF that reported clinical events during a follow-up for dabigatran 75mg, 110 mg or 150 mg, and warfarin. We proceeded to the extraction and analysis of data for clinical thromboembolic events, bleeding and mortality. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Results: We selected 9 studies involving a total of 291,703 patients, 85,399 treated with dabigatran and the remaining 206,304 with warfarin. The incidence of stroke was 1.71 / 100 patient-years for dabigatran and 2.44 / 100 patient years for warfarin (relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27, p=0.58). The major bleeding rate was 3.90 / 100 patient-years for dabigatran and 3.92 / 100 patient years for warfarin (RR 0.90; 0.78 to 1.03, p=0.11). The all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 0.75-0.88, p<0.001) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.45, from 0.27 to 0.76, p=0.002) were significantly lower in patients treated with dabigatran in comparison to those treated with warfarin. There were no significant differences in risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.55; 0.29 to 1.07, p=0.08), total hemorrhage (RR 1.00; 0.57 to 1.77, p=0.99), and gastro-intestinal bleeding (RR 1.14; 0.78 to 1.69, p=0.50). Conclusions: In this combined analysis of observational studies of real world, dabigatran compared to warfarin was associated with a similar risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, total bleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding, and a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and mortality.


Heart ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (15) ◽  
pp. 1204-1211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Caldeira ◽  
Filipe B Rodrigues ◽  
Márcio Barra ◽  
Ana Teresa Santos ◽  
Daisy de Abreu ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document