scholarly journals Impact of a Computerized Antithrombotic Risk Assessment Tool on the Prescription of Thromboprophylaxis in Atrial Fibrillation: Hospital Setting

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Pandya ◽  
N. Masood ◽  
Y. Wang ◽  
I. Krass ◽  
B. Bajorek
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Treatment Recommendation ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

The computerized antithrombotic risk assessment tool (CARAT) is an online decision-support algorithm that facilitates a systematic review of a patient’s stroke risk, bleeding risk, and pertinent medication safety considerations, to generate an individualized treatment recommendation. The CARAT was prospectively applied across 2 hospitals in the greater Sydney area. Its impact on antithrombotics utilization for thromboprophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation was evaluated. Factors influencing prescribers’ treatment selection were identified. The CARAT recommended a change in baseline therapy for 51.8% of patients. Among anticoagulant-eligible patients (ie, where the risk of stroke outweighed the risk of bleeding) using “nil therapy” or antiplatelet therapy at baseline, the CARAT recommended an upgrade to warfarin in 60 (30.8%) patients. For those in whom the bleeding risk outweighed the stroke risk, the CARAT recommended a downgrade from warfarin to safer alternatives (eg, aspirin) in 37 (19%) patients. Among the “most eligible” (ie, high stroke risk, low bleeding risk, no contraindications; n = 75), the CARAT recommended warfarin for all cases. Discharge therapy observed a marginal increase in anticoagulation prescription in eligible patients (n = 116; 57.8% vs 64.7%, P = .35) compared to baseline. Predictors of warfarin use (vs antiplatelets) included congestive cardiac failure, diabetes mellitus, and polypharmacy. The CARAT was able to optimize the selection of therapy, increasing anticoagulant use among eligible patients. With the increasing complexity of decision-making, such tools may be useful adjuncts in therapy selection in atrial fibrillation. Future studies should explore the utility of such tools in selecting therapies from within an expanded treatment armamentarium comprising the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.

Considerations when choosing an appropriate bleeding risk assessment tool for patients with atrial fibrillation

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 788-790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wern Yew Ding ◽  
Stephanie L. Harrison ◽  
Deirdre A. Lane ◽  
Gregory Y. H. Lip
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool

scholarly journals Which scores should use cardiologist to predict outcomes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
S. Moiseev
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
High Bleeding Risk ◽  
Medical University ◽  
Risk Symptom

Tareev Clinic of Internal Diseases, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia Management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) includes anticoagulation for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism, improvement of AF-related symptoms by rate or rhythm control, and treatment for cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The structured characterization of AF should address four AF-related domains, that is, stroke risk, symptom severity, AF burden (type of AF, number and duration of episodes, etc.), and substrate severity. Various scores, i.e.CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (stroke risk), HAS-BLED (bleeding risk), EHRA (severity of AF-related symptoms), and 2MACE (risk of cardiovascular events), can be used to estimate the risk of outcomes and for treatment decisions. Noteworthy, bleeding risk assessment using HAS-BLED score focuses attention on modifiable risk factors that should be managed to improve safety of anticoagulation, whereas a high bleeding risk score should not lead to withholding oral anticoagulants. New clini- cal and biomarker-based risk scores were developed. However, their potential advantages over existing scores should be confirmed in clinical studies.

Abstract 140: Comparison of Major Complication of Oral Anticoagulants in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Seok Lee
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Gi Bleeding ◽  
Ischemic Stroke Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Oral anticoagulants known as a novel oral anticoagulant have been used for the management of non -valvular atrial fibrillation. There was no enough study regarding the efficacy and safety of three major new oral anticoagulants. We assessed major three oral anticoagulants in terms of major bleeding complication and stroke prevention by meta-analyses studies comparing those drugs. Method: Relevant studies were identified through electronic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov (from inception to February 24, 2016). RevMan and ITC software were used for direct comparisons, respectively. Results: Apixaban (N=6020), versus dabigatran(N=12038), apixaban versus rivaroxaban(N=8503) and rivaroxaban versus dabigatran were analyzed directly. There was significantly higher major bleeding risks in apixaban compared to dabigatran (both 110mg and 150mg) after adjusting baseline bleeding risk (Relative risk 3.41, 95% confidence interval(2.61 to 4.47) in 110mg, (5.62, 4.83 to 6.54) in 150mg. Intracranial bleeding risk in apixaban was significantly higher than in dabigatran (10.5, 6.10 to18.01). However, apixaban had less GI bleeding risk compared to dabigatran (0.80 , 0.65 to 0.98) and also had less ischemic stroke risk (0.31,0.22 to 0.42). Rivaroxaban showed higher major bleeding risk than dabigatran 110mg (2.34 , 1.81 to 3.03), however, Rivaroxaban had less bleeding risk compared to dabigatran 150mg (0.41, 0.35 to 0.46). Dabigatran 110mg and 150mg had less GI bleeding risk compared to rivaroxaban (0.31 , 0.24 to 0.39) and (0.23,0.17 to 0.29) respectively. Ischemic stroke risk was also decreased in dabigatran110mg (0.46, 0.38 to 0.57). and 150mg (0.66 ,0.52 to 0.83). Conclusion: Observed oral anticoagulants were associated with various complications. Overall, apixaban had higher intracranial bleeding risk than dabigatran. The highest GI bleeding risk in rivaroxaban compared to apixaban and dabigatran. Ischemic stroke risk was the highest in dabigatran. In conclusion, we may use those oral anticoagulant based on risks rates, however, a larger study with longer follow-up is needed to corroborate findings.

scholarly journals Combination of Oral Anticoagulants and Single Antiplatelets versus Triple Therapy in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome: Stroke Prevention among Asians

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (02) ◽  
pp. 088-097
Author(s):  
Anwar Santoso ◽  
Sunu B. Raharjo
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Thrombus Formation ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

AbstractAtrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent arrhythmic disease, tends to foster thrombus formation due to hemodynamic disturbances, leading to severe disabling and even fatal thromboembolic diseases. Meanwhile, patients with AF may also present with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring stenting, which creates a clinical dilemma considering that majority of such patients will likely receive oral anticoagulants (OACs) for stroke prevention and require additional double antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) to reduce recurrent cardiac events and in-stent thrombosis. In such cases, the gentle balance between bleeding risk and atherothromboembolic events needs to be carefully considered. Studies have shown that congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years (doubled), diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA; doubled)–vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, sex category (female; CHA2DS2-VASc) scores outperform other scoring systems in Asian populations and that the hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function (1 point each), stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio (INR), elderly (>65 years), drugs/alcohol concomitantly (1 point each; HAS-BLED) score, a simple clinical score that predicts bleeding risk in patients with AF, particularly among Asians, performs better than other bleeding scores. A high HAS-BLED score should not be used to rule out OAC treatment but should instead prompt clinicians to address correctable risk factors. Therefore, the current review attempted to analyze available data from patients with nonvalvular AF who underwent stenting for ACS or CAD and elaborate on the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and antiplatelet management among such patients. For majority of the patients, “triple therapy” comprising OAC, aspirin, and clopidogrel should be considered for 1 to 6 months following ACS. However, the optimal duration for “triple therapy” would depend on the patient's ischemic and bleeding risks, with DOACs being obviously safer than vitamin-K antagonists.

scholarly journals Role of Biological Markers for Cerebral Bleeding Risk STRATification in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation on Oral Anticoagulants for Primary or Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke (Strat-AF Study): Study Design and Methodology

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. 626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Poggesi ◽  
Carmen Barbato ◽  
Francesco Galmozzi ◽  
Eleonora Camilleri ◽  
Francesca Cesari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Biological Markers ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Circulating Biomarkers ◽  
Cerebral Mri

Background and Objectives: In anticoagulated atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, the validity of models recommended for the stratification of the risk ratio between benefits and hemorrhage risk is limited. Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) represents the pathologic substrate for primary intracerebral hemorrhage and ischemic stroke. We hypothesize that biological markers—both circulating and imaging-based—and their possible interaction, might improve the prediction of bleeding risk in AF patients under treatment with any type of oral anticoagulant. Materials and Methods: The Strat-AF study is an observational, prospective, single-center hospital-based study enrolling patients with AF, aged 65 years or older, and with no contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), referring to Center of Thrombosis outpatient clinic of our University Hospital for the management of oral anticoagulation therapy. Recruited patients are evaluated by means of a comprehensive protocol, with clinical, cerebral MRI, and circulating biomarkers assessment at baseline and after 18 months. The main outcome is SVD progression—particularly microbleeds—as a selective surrogate marker of hemorrhagic complication. Stroke occurrence (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the progression of functional, cognitive, and motor status will be evaluated as secondary outcomes. Circulating biomarkers may further improve predictive potentials. Results: Starting from September 2017, 194 patients (mean age 78.1 ± 6.7, range 65–97; 61% males) were enrolled. The type of AF was paroxysmal in 93 patients (48%), and persistent or permanent in the remaining patients. Concerning the type of oral anticoagulant, 57 patients (29%) were on vitamin K antagonists, and 137 (71%) were on direct oral anticoagulants. Follow-up clinical evaluation and brain MRI are ongoing. Conclusions: The Strat-AF study may be an essential step towards the exploration of the role of a combined clinical biomarker or multiple biomarker models in predicting stroke risk in AF, and might sustain the incorporation of such new markers in the existing stroke prediction schemes by the demonstration of a greater incremental value in predicting stroke risk and improvement in clinical outcomes in a cost-effective fashion.

scholarly journals Status of CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc Scores in Predicting Risk of Stroke and its Prevention in Iraqi Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-105
Author(s):  
Mohanad Y. Al-Radeef
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

Atrial fibrillation is associates with elevated risk of stroke. The simplest stroke risk assessment schemes are CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc score. Aspirin and oral anticoagulants are recommended for stroke prevention in such patients. The aim of this study was to  assess status of CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores in Iraqi atrial fibrillation patients and to report current status of stroke prevention in these patients with either warfarin or aspirin in relation to these scores. This prospective cross-sectional study was carried out at Tikrit, Samarra, Sharqat, Baquba, and AL-Numaan hospitals from July 2017 to October 2017. CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were manually calculated. One hundred patients were participated, 48 were men and 52 were women. Their mean age was 62.56 ± 14.36 years. Permanent type of atrial fibrillation, palpitation, and hypertension were the most diagnosed type, symptom and comorbidity recorded in this study respectively. Average scores of CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc were 2.34 ± 1.39 and 4.1 ± 2.05, respectively. These scores were not calculated for these patients in hospital setting. Aspirin and warfarin were prescribed regardless to these scores. The result of this study indicated that CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were often neglected in hospitals; and aspirin is still widely used as a strategy to minimize the risk of stroke. Keywords: Atrial fibrillation, CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, aspirin, warfarin.

Comparison of the CHADS2, CHA2DS2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores for the prediction of clinically relevant bleeding in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: The AMADEUS trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 1074-1079 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros Apostolakis ◽  
Deirdre A. Lane ◽  
Harry Buller ◽  
Gregory Y. H. Lip
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Net Reclassification Improvement ◽  
Anticoagulated Patients ◽  
Discriminatory Performance

SummaryMany of the risk factors for stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) are also important risk factors for bleeding. We tested the hypothesis that the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores (used for stroke risk assessment) could be used to predict serious bleeding, and that these scores would compare well against the HAS-BLED score, which is a specific risk score designed for bleeding risk assessment. From the AMADEUS trial, we focused on the trial’s primary safety outcome for serious bleeding, which was “any clinically relevant bleeding”. The predictive value of HAS-BLED/CHADS2/CHA2DS2-VASc were compared by area under the curve (AUC, a measure of the c-index) and the Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI). Of 2,293 patients on VKA, 251 (11%) experienced at least one episode of “any clinically relevant bleeding” during an average 429 days follow up period. Incidence of “any clinically relevant bleeding” rose with increasing HAS-BLED/CHADS2/CHA2DS2-VASc scores, but was statistically significant only for HAS-BLED (p<0.0001). Only HAS-BLED demonstrated significant discriminatory performance for “any clinically relevant bleeding” (AUC 0.60, p<0.0001). There were significant AUC-differences between HAS-BLED (which had the highest AUC) and both CHADS2 (p<0.001) and CHA2DS2VASc (p=0.001). The HAS-BLED score also demonstrated significant NRI for the outcome of “any clinically relevant bleeding” when compared with CHADS2 (p=0.001) and CHA2DS2-VASc (p=0.04). In conclusion, the HAS-BLED score demonstrated significant discriminatory performance for “any clinically relevant bleeding” in anticoagulated patients with AF, whilst the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores did not. Bleeding risk assessment should be made using a specific bleeding risk score such as HAS-BLED, and the stroke risk scores such as CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc scores should not be used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document