scholarly journals Impact of oral anticoagulation therapy on postoperative atrial fibrillation outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana Fragão-Marques ◽  
Francisco Teixeira ◽  
Jennifer Mancio ◽  
Nair Seixas ◽  
João Rocha-Neves ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery. Recent studies had shown this phenomenon is no longer considered transitory and is associated with higher risk of thromboembolic events or death. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyze previous studies comparing oral anticoagulation therapy with no anticoagulation, regarding these long-term outcomes. Methods PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database were systematically searched to identify the studies comparing the risk of stroke, or thromboembolic events or mortality of POAF patients who received anticoagulation compared with those who were not anticoagulated. Incidence of stroke, thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality were evaluated up to 10 years after surgery. Time-to-event outcomes were collected through hazard ratio (HR) along with their variance and the early endpoints using frequencies or odds ratio (OR). Random effect models were used to compute statistical combined measures and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated through Q statistic-related measures of variance (Tau2, I2, Chi-squared test). Results Eight observational cohort studies were selected, including 15,335 patients (3492 on Oral Anticoagulants (OAC) vs 11,429 without OAC) that met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Patients had a wide gender distribution (38.6–82.3%), each study with a mean age above 65 years (67.5–85). Vitamin K antagonists were commonly prescribed anticoagulants (74.3–100%). OAC was associated with a protective impact on all-cause mortality at a mean of 5.0 years of follow-up (HR is 0.85 [0.72–1.01]; p = 0.07; I2 = 48%). Thromboembolic events did not differ between the two treatment arms (HR 0.68 [0.40–1.15], p = 0.15). Conclusion Current literature suggests a possibly protective impact of OAC therapy for all-cause mortality in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. However, it does not appear to impact thromboembolism rate.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 3212
Author(s):  
Fabiana Lucà ◽  
Simona Giubilato ◽  
Stefania Angela Di Fusco ◽  
Laura Piccioni ◽  
Carmelo Massimiliano Rao ◽  
...  

The therapeutic dilemma between rhythm and rate control in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) is still unresolved and electrical or pharmacological cardioversion (CV) frequently represents a useful strategy. The most recent guidelines recommend anticoagulation according to individual thromboembolic risk. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been routinely used to prevent thromboembolic events. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) represent a significant advance due to their more predictable therapeutic effect and more favorable hemorrhagic risk profile. In hemodynamically unstable patients, an emergency electrical cardioversion (ECV) must be performed. In this situation, intravenous heparin or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) should be administered before CV. In patients with AF occurring within less than 48 h, synchronized direct ECV should be the elective procedure, as it restores sinus rhythm quicker and more successfully than pharmacological cardioversion (PCV) and is associated with shorter length of hospitalization. Patients with acute onset AF were traditionally considered at lower risk of thromboembolic events due to the shorter time for atrial thrombus formation. In patients with hemodynamic stability and AF for more than 48 h, an ECV should be planned after at least 3 weeks of anticoagulation therapy. Alternatively, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to rule out left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) should be performed, followed by ECV and anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks. Theoretically, the standardized use of TEE before CV allows a better stratification of thromboembolic risk, although data available to date are not univocal.


2018 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-41
Author(s):  
Adelina-Mihaela Sorescu ◽  
Tudor Enache ◽  
Suzana Guberna

Background and aims. Few studies discuss the prevalence of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) in clinical practice, despite their increasing use worldwide. In America, studies established that 20% to 80% of the patients with indication benefit from OAT. In Romania, there is no data regarding the utilization of oral anticoagulants. Thus, this study aims to determine the trends of OAT.Methods. We designed a cross-sectional study of the patients admitted to the Cardiology Department of the “Bagdasar-Arseni” Clinical Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, from the 1st of November 2016 until the 31st of January 2017. We considered OAT indications to be: atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF), pulmonary embolisms (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), intramural or intracavitary thrombi and left ventricle aneurysms. Statistical analysis was performed with EpiInfo.Results. There were 783 patients admitted, 253 of these having an OAT indication (mean age 73.25 years, 53.75% female). Only 162 patients (64.03%) received it, either Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA) (78 patients, 48.14%), or Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) (84 patients, 51.85%). Reasons for not indicating such therapy included the hemorrhage risk (43.27%), the lack of adherence to the treatment (18.56%), the impossibility of INR monitoring (21.84%), the economic status (10.21%) and others (6.12%). 221 patients had AF (87.35%), 141 (63.8%) receiving OAT, VKA (67 patients, 47.51%), or NOAC (74 patients, 52.48%). 17 patients (6.71%) had a PE and/or DVT. 15 (88.23%) received OAT, AVK (11 patients, 73.33%), or NOAC (4 patients, 26.67%). 15 patients (5.92%) had other OAT indications (excepting AF or PE/DVT), 11 receiving OAT (73.33%), AVK (8 patients, 72.72%), or NOAC (3 patients, 27.27%).Conclusions. Our study determined that 64.03% of those with indication received OAT. Similar data is reported in the USA, suggesting an underuse of anticoagulants. The risk of hemorrhage, lack of adherence, the impossibility of INR monitoring or the economic status were some of the reasons for not recommending OAT.


Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (19) ◽  
pp. 1487-1492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronen Arbel ◽  
Ruslan Sergienko ◽  
Ariel Hammerman ◽  
Sari Dotan-Greenberg ◽  
Erez Batat ◽  
...  

ObjectiveAlthough direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are the recommended antithrombotic therapy for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), anticoagulation in patients with NVAF is still inadequate. The effect of withholding DOAC therapy on patient survival is unknown. Therefore, our objective was to compare all-cause mortality rates between DOAC-treated patients with NVAF and similar patients receiving no anticoagulation.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study analysing Clalit Health Services’ extensive electronic database, regarding all newly diagnosed, anticoagulant-naïve patients with NVAF who were eligible for DOAC therapy from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2016. Patients who received DOAC therapy were matched by propensity scoring to patients receiving no anticoagulation. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Final patient follow-up date was 15 May 2017.Results18 901 eligible patients were identified. 8298 received treatment with a DOAC and 10 603 received no anticoagulation therapy. Of those, 5657 patients who received DOAC therapy were matched with 5657 patients who did not receive any anticoagulant. Death occurred in 715 patients in the DOAC-treated group (7.6% per year) and in 2075 patients in the non-anticoagulated patient group (11.1% per year). DOAC therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.75, p<0.001). The benefit of DOAC therapy was demonstrated across all subgroups analysed.ConclusionsIn this cohort of newly diagnosed patients with NVAF, DOAC therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of death compared with no oral anticoagulation. Our findings provide further evidence for the importance of providing DOAC anticoagulation in patients with NVAF.


Author(s):  
Vincenzo Russo ◽  
Roberta Bottino ◽  
Antonello D’Andrea ◽  
Angelo Silverio ◽  
Marco Di Maio ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose The clinical course of COVID-19 may be complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and thromboembolic events, which are associated with high risk of mortality. Although previous studies reported a lower rate of death in patients treated with heparin, the potential benefit of chronic oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the association between OAT with the risk of ARDS and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods This is a multicenter retrospective Italian study including consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 1 to April 22, 2020, at six Italian hospitals. Patients were divided into two groups according to the chronic assumption of oral anticoagulants. Results Overall, 427 patients were included; 87 patients (19%) were in the OAT group. Of them, 54 patients (13%) were on treatment with non-vitamin k oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and 33 (8%) with vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs). OAT patients were older and had a higher rate of hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease compared to No-OAT group. The rate of ARDS at admission (26% vs 28%, P=0.834), or developed during the hospitalization (9% vs 10%, P=0.915), was similar between study groups; in-hospital mortality (22% vs 26%, P=0.395) was also comparable. After balancing for potential confounders by using the propensity score matching technique, no differences were found in term of clinical outcome between OAT and No-OAT patients Conclusion Oral anticoagulation therapy, either NOACs or VKAs, did not influence the risk of ARDS or death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.


Medical Care ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Fenger-Grøn ◽  
Claus H. Vestergaard ◽  
Lars Frost ◽  
Dimitry S. Davydow ◽  
Erik T. Parner ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Shiraki ◽  
H Tanaka ◽  
K Yamashita ◽  
Y Tanaka ◽  
K Sumimoto ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently sustained cardiac arrhythmia, with a prevalence of about 2–3% in the general population. In accordance with CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc score, appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy such as warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) significantly reduced the risk of thromboembolic events. However, left atrial (LA) thrombus can be detected in the LA appendage (LAA) in AF patients despite appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy. Purpose Our purpose was to investigate the associated factors of LAA thrombus formation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients despite under appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy. Methods We retrospectively studied consecutive 286 NVAF patients for scheduled catheter ablation or electrical cardioversion for AF in our institution between February 2017 and September 2019. Mean age was 67.1±9.4 years, 79 patients (29.5%) were female, and 140 (52.2%) were paroxysmal AF. All patients underwent transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography before catheter ablation or electrical cardioversion. All patients received appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy including warfarin or DOAC for at least 3 weeks prior to transesophageal echocardiography based on the current guidelines. LAA thrombus was defined as an echodense intracavitary mass distinct from the underlying endocardium and not caused by pectinate muscles by at least three senior echocardiologists. Results Of 286 NVAF patients with under appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy, LAA thrombus was observed in 9 patients (3.3%). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that age, paroxysmal AF, CHADS2 score ≥3, left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), LA volume index (LAVI), mitral inflow E and mitral e' annular velocities ratio (E/e'), and LAA flow were associated with LAA thrombus formation. It was noteworthy that multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that LAA flow was independent predictor of LAA thrombus (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59–0.89, p&lt;0.005) as well as LVEF. Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis identified the optimal cutoff value of LAA flow for predicting LAA thrombus as ≤15cm/s, with a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 93%, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95. Conclusions LAA flow was strongly associated with LAA thrombus formation even in NVAF patients with appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy. According to our findings, further strengthen of oral anticoagulation therapy or percutaneous transcatheter closure of the LAA may be considered in NVAF patients with appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy but low LAA flow, especially &lt;15cm/s. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 1000-1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuhiko Kido ◽  
Michael J. Scalese

Objective: To evaluate current clinical evidence for management of oral anticoagulation therapy after gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) with an emphasis on whether to, when to, and how to resume an anticoagulation therapy. Data Sources: Relevant articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were identified from 1946 through May 20, 2017, using the keywords: gastrointestinal hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding and antithrombotic therapy or anticoagulation therapy or warfarin or dabigatran or rivaroxaban or apixaban or edoxaban.Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language studies assessing management of oral anticoagulation therapy after GIB were evaluated. Data Synthesis: A total of 9 studies were identified. Four retrospective cohort studies showed that resuming anticoagulation therapy was associated with significantly lower rate of thromboembolism (TE) in the general population. Meta-analyses and prospective cohort studies also supported this finding. Two retrospective cohort studies indicated an increase in GIB when anticoagulation reinitiation occurred in less than 7 days without a decrease in TE. Resuming therapy between 7 and 15 days did not demonstrate a significant increase in GIB or TE. A large retrospective study showed that apixaban was associated with the significantly lowest risk of GIB compared with both rivaroxaban and dabigatran. Conclusion: Anticoagulation therapy resumption is recommended, with resumption being considered between 7 and 14 days following GIB regardless of the therapy chosen. Data for warfarin management after GIB should be applied with caution to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) because of the quicker onset and experimental nature of reversal agents. Apixaban may be a preferred option when restarting a DOAC therapy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document