Antiplatelet Agents and Survival: A Cohort Analysis From the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) Trial

Objectives. This study sought to evaluate the relation between antiplatelet agent (APA) use and survival and morbidity from cardiac disease in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction.Background. APAs play an important role in the prevention and treatment of coronary disease. Their effects in patients with LV systolic dysfunction are unknown.Methods. We reviewed data on APA use in 6,797 patients enrolled in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trial and analyzed the relation between their use and all-cause mortality as well as the combined end point of death or hospital admission for heart failure (HF). We used Cox regression to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics and to test for the interaction between APA use and selected patient variables in relation to outcome.Results. APA use (46.3% of patients) was associated with significantly reduced mortality from all causes (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 0.92, p = 0.0005) and reduced risk of death or hospital admission for HF (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89, p < 0.0001) but was not influenced by trial assignment, gender, LV ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class or etiology. A strong interaction was observed among APA use, randomization group and all-cause mortality. The association between APA use and survival was not observed in the enalapril group, nor was an enalapril benefit on survival detectable in patients receiving APAs at baseline. However, randomization to enalapril therapy significantly reduced the combined end point of death or hospital admission for HF in APA users.Conclusions. In patients with LV systolic dysfunction, use of APAs is associated with improved survival and reduced morbidity. This association is retained after adjustment for baseline characteristics. APA use is associated with retained but reduced benefit from enalapril.     

Effectiveness and Safety of Anticoagulants in Adults with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and Concomitant Coronary/Peripheral Artery Disease

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are at least non-inferior to warfarin in efficacy and safety among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Limited evidence is available regarding outcomes for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with coronary/peripheral artery disease.

Does Warfarin for Stroke Thromboprophylaxis Protect Against MI in Atrial Fibrillation Patients?

The Randomized Evaluation of Long-term anticoagulation therapY (RE-LY) study demonstrated a significant increase in myocardial infarction events with dabigatran compared with warfarin, provoking renewed interest in whether vitamin K antagonists are useful drugs for the prevention of myocardial infarction in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation. Present analyses examined whether there was an increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with non-warfarin anticoagulants (Stroke Prevention with the ORal direct Thrombin Inhibitor ximelagatran compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial Fibrillation III and IV, RE-LY, Amadeus) or “anticoagulant equivalents” (Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for the prevention of Vascular Events) in patients with atrial fibrillation who are prescribed anticoagulation for stroke thromboprophylaxis. The overall annual event rate for those receiving warfarin was 0.98% compared with 1.32% for those receiving comparators. Warfarin was associated with a significant reduction in myocardial infarction (relative risk 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-0.95), an effect largely driven by the RE-LY trial. Sensitivity analyses, excluding RE-LY, revealed a nonsignificant reduction in myocardial infarctions (relative risk 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.10); an analogous analysis excluding the Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for the prevention of Vascular Events demonstrated a significant reduction in myocardial infarctions (relative risk 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00). Warfarin might provide a protective effect against myocardial infarction compared with non-warfarin anticoagulants or “anticoagulation equivalents” in patients with atrial fibrillation who are prescribed anticoagulation for stroke thromboprophylaxis.     

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Disease

BackgroundAdvanced liver disease is known to increase the risk for bleeding and affects the hepatic clearance and metabolism of drugs. Subjects with active liver disease were excluded from pivotal clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), so the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with liver disease is lacking.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare DOACs with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and liver disease.MethodsUsing the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, subjects with atrial fibrillation and active liver disease treated with oral anticoagulation were included (12,778 with warfarin and 24,575 with DOACs), and analyzed ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, major bleeding, all-cause death, and the composite outcome. Propensity score weighting was used to balance covariates between the 2 groups.ResultsDOACs were associated with lower risks for ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.548; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.485 to 0.618), intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 0.479; 95% CI 0.394 to 0.581), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR: 0.819; 95% CI: 0.619 to 0.949), major bleeding (HR: 0.650; 95% CI: 0.575 to 0.736), all-cause death (HR: 0.698; 95% CI: 0.636 to 0.765), and the composite outcome (HR: 0.610; 95% CI: 0.567 to 0.656) than warfarin. Among the total study population, 13% of patients (n = 4,942) were identified as having significant active liver disease. A consistent benefit was observed in patients with significant active liver disease (HR for the composite outcome: 0.691; 95% CI: 0.577 to 0.827).ConclusionsIn this large Asian population with atrial fibrillation and liver disease, DOACs showed better effectiveness and safety than warfarin, which was consistent in those with significant active liver disease.     

Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk for mortality and heart failure progression in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis of the SOLVD trials

Objective. This study undertook to determine if the presence of atrial fibrillation in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular dysfunction was associated with increased mortality and, if so, whether the increase could be attributed to progressive heart failure or arrhythmic death.Background. Atrial fibrillation is a common condition in heart failure with the potential to impact hemodynamics and progression of left ventricular systolic dysfunction as well as the electrophysiologic substrate for arrhythmias. The available data do not conclusively define the effect of atrial fibrillation on prognosis in heart failure.Methods. A retrospective analysis of the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction Prevention and Treatment Trials was conducted that compared patients with atrial fibrillation to those in sinus rhythm at baseline for the risk of all-cause mortality, progressive pump-failure death and arrhythmic death.Results. The patients with atrial fibrillation at baseline, compared to those in sinus rhythm, had greater all-cause mortality (34% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), death attributed to pump-failure (16.7% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001) and were more likely to reach the composite end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between the groups in arrhythmic deaths. After multivariate analysis, atrial fibrillation remained significantly associated with all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12 to 1.62, p = 0.002), progressive pump-failure death (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.85, p = 0.01), the composite end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42, p = 0.02), but not arrhythmic death (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.71; p = 0.55).Conclusions. The presence of atrial fibrillation in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction is associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, largely explained by an increased risk for pump-failure death. These data suggest that atrial fibrillation is associated with progression of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.     

Myocardial Strain in Prediction of Outcomes After Surgery for Severe Mitral Regurgitation

Objectives

We investigated whether global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a better predictor of clinical events after surgery for mitral regurgitation (MR) than conventional parameters.

Warfarin use among ambulatory patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: the anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation (ATRIA) study

BACKGROUND: Warfarin dramatically reduces the risk for ischemic stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but its use among ambulatory patients with atrial fibrillation has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates and predictors of warfarin use in ambulatory patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Large health maintenance organization. PATIENTS: 13428 patients with a confirmed ambulatory diagnosis of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and known warfarin status between 1 July 1996 and 31 December 1997. MEASUREMENTS: Data from automated pharmacy, laboratory, and clinical-administrative databases were used to determine the prevalence and determinants of warfarin use in the 3 months before or after the identified diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Of 11082 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and no known contraindications, 55% received warfarin. Warfarin use was substantially lower in patients who were younger than 55 years of age (44.3%) and those who were 85 years of age or older (35.4%). Only 59.3% of patients with one or more risk factors for stroke and no contraindications were receiving warfarin. Among a subset of "ideal" candidates to receive warfarin (persons 65 to 74 years of age who had no contraindications and had previous stroke, hypertension, or both), 62.1% had evidence of warfarin use. Among our entire cohort, the strongest predictors of receiving warfarin were previous stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 2.55 [95% CI, 2.23 to 2.92]), heart failure (odds ratio, 1.63 [CI, 1.51 to 1.77]), previous intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio, 0.33 [CI, 0.21 to 0.52]), age 85 years or older (odds ratio, 0.35 [CI, 0.31 to 0.40]), and previous gastrointestinal hemorrhage (odds ratio, 0.47 [CI, 0.40 to 0.57]). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, contemporary cohort of ambulatory patients with atrial fibrillation who received care within a health maintenance organization, warfarin use was considerably higher than in other reported studies. Although the reasons why physicians did not prescribe warfarin could not be elucidated, many apparently eligible patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke, especially hypertension, did not receive anticoagulation. Interventions are needed to increase the use of warfarin for stroke prevention among appropriate candidates.     

Comparative Stroke,Bleeding, and Mortality Risks in Older Medicare Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

BackgroundNonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are alternatives to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Randomized trials compared NOACs with warfarin, but none have compared individual NOACs against each other for safety and effectiveness.MethodsWe performed a retrospective new-user cohort study of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation enrolled in US Medicare who initiated warfarin (n = 183,318), or a standard dose of dabigatran (150 mg twice daily; n = 86,198), rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily; n = 106,389), or apixaban (5 mg twice daily; n = 73,039) between October 2010 and September 2015. Propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of thromboembolic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, major extracranial bleeding, and all-cause mortality, comparing each NOAC with warfarin, and with each other NOAC.ResultsCompared with warfarin, each NOAC was associated with reduced risks of thromboembolic stroke (20%-29% reduction; P = .002 [dabigatran], P < 0.001 [rivaroxaban, apixaban]), intracranial hemorrhage (35%-62% reduction; P < 0.001 [each NOAC]), and mortality (19%-34% reduction; P < .001 [each NOAC]). The NOACs were similar for thromboembolic stroke but rivaroxaban was associated with increased risks of intracranial hemorrhage (vs dabigatran: HR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.17), major extracranial bleeding (vs dabigatran: HR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45; vs apixaban: HR = 2.70; 95% CI, 2.38-3.05), and death (vs dabigatran: HR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; vs apixaban: HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.38). Dabigatran was associated with reduced risk of intracranial hemorrhage (HR = 0.70; 95% CI ,0.53-0.94) and increased risk of major extracranial bleeding (HR = 2.04; 95% CI, 1.78-2.32) compared with apixaban.ConclusionsAmong patients treated with standard-dose NOAC for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and warfarin users with similar baseline characteristics, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban were associated with a more favorable benefit–harm profile than warfarin. Among NOAC users, dabigatran and apixaban were associated with a more favorable benefit–harm profile than rivaroxaban.     

Influence of diabetes on cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without defibrillator in patients with advanced heart failure

ObjectivesWe performed a post hoc analysis to determine the influence of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) or without a defibrillator (CRT-P) on outcomes among diabetic patients with advanced heart failure (HF).BackgroundIn patients with systolic HF, diabetes is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. No data are available on its impact on CRT-D or CRT-P in advanced HF.MethodsThe database of the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing and Defibrillation in Heart Failure trial was examined to determine the influence of CRT (CRT-D and CRT-P) on outcomes among diabetic patients. All-cause mortality or hospitalization, all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality were analyzed among diabetic patients (n = 622). A Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for age, gender, New York Heart Association, ischemic status, body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, heart rate, QRS, left or right bundle branch block, blood pressure, comorbidities (renal failure, carotid artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, coronary artery bypass grafting, and atrial fibrillation), medications, and device (with or without defibrillator), was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and significance.ResultsThe overall outcome of diabetic patients was similar to that of nondiabetic patients in the optimal pharmacologic therapy arm. With CRT, diabetic patients experienced a substantial reduction in all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization (HR = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 62–0.97), all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53–0.85), all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.40–0.69), and all-cause mortality (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45–0.99) compared with optimal pharmacologic therapy. Procedure-related complications and length of stay were identical in diabetic and nondiabetic patients.ConclusionIn diabetic patients with advanced HF, there is a substantial benefit from device therapy with significant improvement in all end points.     

Comparison of mortality and morbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved versus decreased left ventricular ejection fraction

Almost 50% of patients with congestive heart failure (HF) have preserved ejection fraction (PEF). Data on the effect of HF-PEF on atrial fibrillation outcomes are lacking. We assessed the prognostic significance of HF-PEF in an atrial fibrillation population compared to a systolic heart failure (SHF) population. A post hoc analysis of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-limited access data set of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) trial was carried out. The patients with a history of congestive HF and a preserved ejection fraction (EF >50%) were classified as having HF-PEF (n = 320). The patients with congestive HF and a qualitatively depressed EF (EF <50%) were classified as having SHF (n = 402). Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed. The mean follow-up duration was 1,181 ± 534 days/patient. The patients with HF-PEF had lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.85, p = 0.003) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.84, p = 0.006), with a possible decreased arrhythmic end point (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.006, p = 0.052) than did the patients with SHF. No differences were observed for ischemic stroke (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.39, p = 0.86), rehospitalization (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07, p = 0.24), or progression to New York Heart Association class III-IV (odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.54, p = 0.522). In conclusion, although patients with HF-PEF have better mortality outcomes than those with SHF, the morbidity appears to be similar.     

Left ventricular systolic dysfunction and atrial fibrillation in older people in the community--a need for screening?

BACKGROUND: Heart failure and stroke are major causes of morbidity and mortality in older people. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors improve symptoms and survival in left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Anticoagulants are effective in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation with aspirin being a less effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, health services utilisation and prescribing of diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and the prevalence of atrial fibrillation and anti-platelet/thrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation in older people in the community. METHODS: 500 subjects were drawn by two-stage random sampling from 5,002 subjects aged 70 years and over living at home. Subjects were screened for atrial fibrillation and left ventricular systolic dysfunction using electrocardiography and echocardiography. RESULTS: The population prevalence amongst older people of left ventricular systolic dysfunction was 9.8% and of atrial fibrillation 7.8%. More than two-thirds of those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction were not on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Of those in atrial fibrillation, 35% were taking aspirin, 24% were taking warfarin and 41% were on neither aspirin nor warfarin. Nearly 90% of older people in the community have had contact with their general practitioner over the past year, and over half of those with left ventricular systolic dysfunction have had contact with hospital-based services over the past 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular systolic dysfunction is under-treated in older people in the community. Despite the high level of contact with hospital and community-based services, the majority of those with systolic left ventricular dysfunction are not on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and a significant proportion of those in atrial fibrillation are not on any treatment for stroke prevention.     

Frequency and effect of optimal anticoagulation before onset of ischaemic stroke in patients with known atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: The aims of the study were (i) to examine which antithrombotic therapy patients with known atrial fibrillation use at the point of time when they suffer an ischaemic stroke, (ii) to evaluate the effects of optimal antithrombotic treatment on outcome and severity of the stroke. METHODS: Patients with known atrial fibrillation before onset of acute ischaemic stroke, and age >60 years were included. Antithrombotic therapy on admission was classified into four groups: no antithrombotic therapy, aspirin, sub-optimal anticoagulation (warfarin and international normalized ratio, INR<2.0) and optimal anticoagulation (warfarin and INR>or=2.0). Primary outcome: modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 5 or 6 at day 7 poststroke. Secondary outcomes: (i) death or discharge to a nursing home, (ii) death, (iii) stroke severity on admission assessed by Scandinavian Stroke Scale. RESULTS: A total of 394 patients were included. On admission 109 (28%) patients used no antithrombotic therapy, 169 (43%) aspirin, 52 (13%) warfarin and had an INR<2.0, and 64 (16%) used warfarin and had an INR>or=2.0. The proportion of patients with an mRS 5 or 6 and the corresponding odds ratios were: in the warfarin group with INR<2.0, 16 (31%), OR 3.1 (CI: 1.2-8.0), (P=0.019), in the group with no antithrombotic therapy 29 (27%), 2.5 (1.1-5.9), (P=0.034), and in the aspirin group 41(24%), 2.2 (1.0-5.1) (P=0.054), compared with the warfarin group with INR>or=2.0, where eight (13%) patients had a poor outcome. A significantly higher proportion of patients died or were discharged to a nursing home in the warfarin group with an INR<2.0 (P=0.014), in the aspirin group (P=0.018) and in the no-treatment group (P=0.035), compared with the warfarin group with an INR>or=2.0. No significant differences were found regarding death alone and stroke severity on admission. DISCUSSION: Few patients with known atrial fibrillation who suffer an ischaemic stroke receive optimal antithrombotic therapy prior to the onset of stroke. Optimal anticoagulation does not only reduce the risk of ischaemic stroke, but also appears to reduce death and severe dependency as well as the need for nursing home care, if an ischaemic stroke occurs.     

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with a history of atrial fibrillation: The Losartan Intervention For End Point Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients with electrocardiographic (ECG) left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of hypertensive patients with AF to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality remains unclear. METHODS: As part of the Losartan Intervention For End point reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study, 342 hypertensive patients with AF and LV hypertrophy were assigned to losartan- or atenolol-based therapy for 1,471 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: The primary composite end point (cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction) occurred in 36 patients in the losartan group versus 67 in the atenolol group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 to 0.88, p = 0.009). Cardiovascular deaths occurred in 20 versus 38 patients in the losartan and atenolol groups, respectively (HR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, p = 0.048). Stroke occurred in 18 versus 38 patients (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, p = 0.039), and myocardial infarction in 11 versus 8 patients (p = NS). Losartan-based treatment led to trends toward lower all-cause mortality (30 vs. 49, HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, p = 0.090) and fewer pacemaker implantations (5 vs. 15, p = 0.065), whereas hospitalization for heart failure took place in 15 versus 26 patients and sudden cardiac death in 9 versus 17, respectively (both p = NS). The benefit of losartan was greater in patients with AF than those with sinus rhythm for the primary composite end point (p = 0.019) and cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Losartan is more effective than atenolol-based therapy in reducing the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as stroke and cardiovascular death in hypertensive patients with ECG LV hypertrophy and AF.     

华法林对中国人心房颤动患者抗栓的安全性和有效性研究

目的　通过回顾性分析心房颤动 (房颤 )患者的抗栓治疗 ,初步探讨中国人华法林国际标准化率 (INR)的合理范围。方法　调查 4 35例房颤患者应用华法林抗凝及INR监测情况 ,分析出血和血栓栓塞事件的危险因素及与INR的关系。结果　华法林疗程时间中位数 7个月 ,平均剂量为(2 77± 0 83)mg。共发生出血事件 31例 (7 11% ) ,其中严重出血 5例 ,轻微出血 2 6例。发生出血患者年龄略高于对照组 [(6 5 1± 10 0 )岁与 (6 2 0± 12 2岁 ) ],但差异无统计学意义 (P =0 2 5 9) ;出血患者血压高于对照组 ,合并心力衰竭较多 (P =0 0 5 )。多因素分析中INR≥ 3为预测出血的独立危险因素 (OR =3 74 )。血栓栓塞事件 37(17 4 7% )例 ,发生缺血性卒中或栓塞的危险随INR下降明显增加。结论　房颤患者华法林抗凝目标INR值应避免低于 1 5或高于 3 0。     

National Trends in Ambulatory Oral Anticoagulant Use

Background

Four direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been brought to market for the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Many forces, including numerous positive trial results, emerging safety concerns, marketing, and promotion, may shape DOAC adoption by providers. However, relatively little is known regarding their ambulatory utilization compared with warfarin, as well as the degree to which they have decreased under-treatment of atrial fibrillation.

Methods

We used the IMS Health National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient office visits, to estimate the use of warfarin and DOACs between 2009 and 2014.

Results

Overall, visits with anticoagulation use increased from 2.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-2.27) to 2.83 (95% CI, 2.49-3.17) million (M) quarterly visits (P < .001). Of these, DOAC use has grown to 4.21M (95% CI, 3.63M-4.79M; 38.2% of total) treatment visits in 2014 since their introduction in 2010. Use of all oral anticoagulants in treatment visits for atrial fibrillation has increased from 0.88M (95% CI, 0.74M-1.02M) to 1.72M (95% CI, 1.47M-1.97M; P < .001), with similar DOAC and warfarin use in 2014. Atrial fibrillation visits with anticoagulant use increased from 51.9% (95% CI, 50.4%-53.8%) to 66.9% (95% CI, 65.0%-69.3%) between 2009 and 2014 (P < .001). In 2014, rivaroxaban was the most commonly prescribed DOAC for atrial fibrillation (47.9% of office visits), followed by apixaban (26.5%) and dabigatran (25.5%).

Conclusions

Direct oral anticoagulants have been adopted rapidly, matching the use of warfarin, and are associated with increased use of oral anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation.     

Effect of warfarin on outcomes in septuagenarian patients with atrial fibrillation

Anticoagulation has been shown to decrease ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, concerns remain regarding their safety and efficacy in those ≥70 years of age who constitute most patients with AF. Of the 4,060 patients (mean age 65 years, range 49 to 80) in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) trial, 2,248 (55% of 4,060) were 70 to 80 years of age, 1,901 of whom were receiving warfarin. Propensity score for warfarin use, estimated for each of the 2,248 patients, was used to match 227 of the 347 patients not on warfarin (in 1:1, 1:2, or 1:3 sets) to 616 patients on warfarin who were balanced in 45 baseline characteristics. All-cause mortality occurred in 18% and 33% of matched patients receiving and not receiving warfarin, respectively, during up to 6 years (mean 3.4) of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] when warfarin use was compared to its nonuse 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.77, p <0.001). All-cause hospitalization occurred in 64% and 67% of matched patients receiving and not receiving warfarin, respectively (HR associated with warfarin use 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12, p = 0.423). Ischemic stroke occurred in 4% and 8% of matched patients receiving and not receiving warfarin, respectively (HR associated with warfarin use 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.04, p = 0.068). Major bleeding occurred in 7% and 10% of matched patients receiving and not receiving warfarin, respectively (HR associated with warfarin use 0.73, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.22, p = 0.229). In conclusion, warfarin use was associated with decreased mortality in septuagenarian patients with AF but had no association with hospitalization or major bleeding.     

Prior History of Falls and Risk of Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation: The Loire Valley Atrial Fibrillation Project

BackgroundPatients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation are often denied oral anticoagulation due to falls risk. The latter is variably defined, and existing studies have not compared the associated risk of bleeding with other cardiovascular events. There are no data about outcomes in individuals with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with a prior history of (actual) falls, rather than being “at risk of falls.” Our objective was to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular outcomes associated with prior history of falls in patients with atrial fibrillation in a contemporary “real world” cohort.MethodsPatients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in a 4-hospital institution between 2000 and 2010 were included. Stroke/thromboembolism event rates were calculated according to prior history of falls. Risk factors were investigated by Cox regression.ResultsAmong 7156 atrial fibrillation patients, prior history of falls/trauma was uncommon (n = 76; 1.1%). Compared with patients without history of falls, those patients were older and less likely to be on oral anticoagulation; they also had higher risk scores for stroke/thromboembolism but not for bleeding. Compared with no prior history of falls, rates of stroke/thromboembolism (P = .01) and all-cause mortality (P < .0001) were significantly higher in patients with previous falls. In multivariable analyses, prior history of falls was independently associated with stroke/thromboembolism (hazard ratio [HR] 5.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-12.6; P < .0001), major bleeding (HR 3.32 [1.23-8.91]; P = .02), and all-cause mortality (HR 3.69; 95% CI, 1.52-8.95; P = .04), but not hemorrhagic stroke (HR 4.20; 95% CI, 0.58-30.48; P = .16) in patients on oral anticoagulation.ConclusionIn this large “real world” atrial fibrillation cohort, prior history of falls was uncommon but independently increased risk of stroke/thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality, but not hemorrhagic stroke in the presence of anticoagulation. Prior history of (actual) falls may be a more clinically useful risk prognosticator than “being at risk of falls.”     

Relation of lower hematocrit to progression from asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction to symptomatic heart failure (from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction Prevention trial)

The relation between hematocrit and progression from asymptomatic left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction to symptomatic heart failure (HF) was examined in 2,821 patients from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction Prevention trial. Patients in the lowest hematocrit quartile (hematocrit < or = 40%) were at increased risk for the development of HF symptoms (hazard ratio [HR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37 to 2.34), first HF hospitalization (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.62), and death or the development of HF symptoms (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.99) compared with patients in the highest hematocrit quartile (hematocrit > 46%).     

Dabigatran,rivaroxaban, and apixaban are superior to warfarin in Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDMost of the randomized clinical trials that led to the wide use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) originated from western countries. AIMTo systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the real-world data regarding the efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared to warfarin for stroke prevention in Asian patients with non-valvular AF.METHODSMedline, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were reviewed. A random-effect model meta-analysis was used and I-square was utilized to assess the heterogeneity. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding.RESULTSTwelve studies from East Asia or Southeast Asia and 441450 patients were included. Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban were associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of ischemic stroke [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.94; HR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.74-0.85, HR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.62-0.78; respectively], all-cause mortality (HR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.56-0.83; HR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.52-0.84; HR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.49-0.90; respectively), and major bleeding (HR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.54-0.69; HR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.54-0.90; HR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.43-0.78; respectively) compared to warfarin.CONCLUSIONDabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban appear to be superior to warfarin in both efficacy and safety in Asians with non-valvular AF.     

Lower dose direct oral anticoagulants and improved survival: A combined analysis in patients with established atherosclerosis

BackgroundAntithrombotic/anticoagulation effects of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are dose-dependent. However, recent observations suggest that administering lower dose DOACs may better protect against all-cause mortality. We investigated whether, in patients with established atherosclerosis, DOAC dose selection would affect the risk of all-cause mortality.MethodsWe performed a structured literature research for controlled trials allowing random assignment to a lower dose DOAC, a higher dose DOAC, or control therapy in patients with established atherosclerosis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of all-cause mortality in lower and higher dose DOACs versus control therapy were estimated using a random-effect model.ResultsAtherosclerosis manifested as acute coronary syndrome (n=17,220), stable coronary (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) (n=27,395) or CAD associated with atrial fibrillation (n=4,510). Antithrombotic doses of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg or 5.0 mg BID) or dabigatran (50 mg, 75 mg, 110 mg, or 150 mg, BID) were tested in three trials versus single or dual antiplatelet control therapy, whereas anticoagulation doses of edoxaban (30 mg or 60 OD) were tested versus warfarin in one trial. Compared to control, patients receiving lower dose (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89, p<0.0001, I²=0%), but not those receiving higher dose DOACs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.05, p=0.3074, I²=0%), had a significant reduction of all-cause mortality. Benefit from lower dose DOACs remained after sensitivity analysis or direct comparison with higher dose DOACs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93, p=0.0009, I²=0%).ConclusionsWithin antithrombotic/anticoagulation regimens of DOAC administration, selection of lower dose appears to protect from all-cause mortality in patients with established atherosclerosis.