scholarly journals Warfarin and the Risk of Death, Stroke, and Major Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Lei ◽  
Li-Ting Yu ◽  
Wei-Ning Wang ◽  
Shun-Guo Zhang
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2490
Author(s):  
Giulio Francesco Romiti ◽  
Bernadette Corica ◽  
Gregory Y. H. Lip ◽  
Marco Proietti

Background: In patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular complications are common and associated with poor prognosis. Among these, an association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and COVID-19 has been described; however, the extent of this relationship is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the epidemiology of AF in COVID-19 patients and its impact on all-cause mortality. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed and reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol for this study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021227950). PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for relevant studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Overall, 31 studies were included in the analysis, with a total number of 187,716 COVID-19 patients. The prevalence of AF was found to be as high as 8% of patients with COVID-19 (95% CI: 6.3–10.2%, 95% prediction intervals (PI): 2.0–27.1%), with a high degree of heterogeneity between studies; a multiple meta-regression model including geographical location, age, hypertension, and diabetes showed that these factors accounted for more than a third of the heterogeneity. AF COVID-19 patients were less likely to be female but more likely older, hypertensive, and with a critical status than those without AF. Patients with AF showed a significant increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 3.97, 95% CI: 2.76–5.71), with a high degree of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis focusing on new-onset AF showed the consistency of these results. Conclusions: Among COVID-19 patients, AF is found in 8% of patients. AF COVID-19 patients are older, more hypertensive, and more likely to have a critical status. In COVID-19 patients, AF is associated with a 4-fold higher risk of death. Further studies are needed to define the best treatment strategies to improve the prognosis of AF COVID-19 patients.


EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
GF Romiti ◽  
D Pastori ◽  
JM Rivera-Caravaca ◽  
WY Ding ◽  
YX Gue ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background The ‘Atrial Fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway has been recently proposed as a holistic approach for the comprehensive management of patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF), standing on three main pillars: ‘A’ Avoid stroke (with Anticoagulants); ‘B’ Better symptom management; ‘C’ Cardiovascular and Comorbidity management. The ABC pathway is now recommended in several clinical guidelines, including the recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) AF management guidelines. We performed a systematic review of the current evidence for use of the ABC pathway on clinical outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA Guidelines. Pubmed and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of ABC pathway adherent management in AF patients, and its impact on clinical outcomes (all-cause death, cardiovascular death, stroke, and major bleeding). Metanalysis of odds ratio (OR) was performed with random-effect models; subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to account for heterogeneity; a CHA2DS2-VASc-stratified sensitivity analysis was also performed. Results Among 2862 records retrieved from the literature search, 8 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of ABC adherent management was 21% (95% confidence intervals (CI), 13-34%), with a high grade of heterogeneity; in a multivariable meta-regression model, adherence to each criteria of the ABC pathway explained most part of the heterogeneity (R2 = 98.9%). Patients treated according to the ABC pathway showed a lower risk of all-cause death (OR:0.42, 95%CI 0.31-0.56), cardiovascular death (OR:0.37, 95%CI 0.23-0.58), stroke (OR:0.55, 95%CI 0.37-0.82) and major bleeding (OR:0.69, 95%CI 0.51-0.94), with moderate heterogeneity. Meta-regressions showed that the increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, chronic heart failure and history of stroke were associated with a reduced effectiveness of the ABC pathway for all-cause and cardiovascular death; each comorbidity was able to explain a significant proportion of heterogeneity at univariate meta-regression. Conversely, longer follow-up time was associated with more effectiveness of the ABC pathway for all outcomes. Adherence to ABC pathway was associated with a progressively greater reduction of the all-cause death risk amongst patients with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores; no difference in ABC pathway effectiveness was found across CHA2DS2-VASc strata for CV death and stroke occurrence. Conclusions Adherence to the ABC pathway was suboptimal, being adopted in 1 in every 5 patients. Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a reduction in the risk of major adverse outcomes. Our data supports extensive application of the ABC pathway for the management of AF. Abstract Figure.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin L Campbell ◽  
John Larson ◽  
Talha Farid ◽  
Stacy Westerman ◽  
Michael S Lloyd ◽  
...  

Introduction: Women undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation (AFCA) have higher rates of vascular complications and major bleeding. However, studies have been underpowered to detect differences in rare complications such as stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and procedural mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review of databases (PubMed, World of Science, Embase) to identify studies published since 2010 reporting AFCA complications by gender. Six complications of interest were: 1) vascular/groin complications; 2) pericardial effusion/tamponade; 3) stroke/TIA; 4) permanent phrenic nerve injury; 5) major bleeding & 6) procedural mortality. For meta-analysis, random effects models were used when heterogeneity between studies was ≥ 50% (vascular complications, major bleeding) and fixed effects models for other endpoints. Results: Of 5716 citations, 19 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 244,353 patients undergoing AFCA, of whom 33% were women. Women were older (65.3 ± 11.2 vs. 60.4 ± 13.2 years), more likely hypertensive (60.6 vs. 55.5%) and diabetic (18.3 vs. 16.5%) and had higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores (3.0 ± 1.8 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4) (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). The rates of all 6 complications were significantly higher in women (Table). However, despite statistically significant differences, the overall incidences of major complications were very low in both genders: stroke/TIA (women 0.51 vs. men 0.39%) and procedural mortality (women 0.25 vs. men 0.18%). Conclusion: Women experience significantly higher rates of AFCA complications. However, the incidence of major procedural complications is very low in both genders. The higher rate of complications in women may be partially attributable to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities at the time of ablation. More detailed studies are needed to better define the mechanisms of increased risk in women and to identify strategies for closing the gender gap.


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 261 ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Proietti ◽  
Giulio Francesco Romiti ◽  
Imma Romanazzi ◽  
Alessio Farcomeni ◽  
Laila Staerk ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (03) ◽  
pp. 484-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjun K. Pandey ◽  
Ke Xu ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
Saurabh Gupta ◽  
John Eikelboom ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Western guidelines recommend an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2 to 3 when using warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but lower INR ranges are frequently used in East Asia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in AF patients comparing the effect of lower versus standard INR targets on thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality. Methods We searched Western databases including Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase as well as Chinese databases including SinoMed, CNKI, and Wanfang Data. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) using random-effects model. We grouped INR targets in two ways: (1) any study-specific lower versus standard targets and (2) INR ranges of approximately 1.5 to 2 versus 2 to 3. Results Seventy-nine RCTs (n = 12,928) met eligibility criteria: 74 (n = 11,322) from East Asia and 5 (n = 1,606) from Western countries. Compared with standard targets, lower INR ranges were associated with higher rates of thromboembolism (76 RCTs, n = 12,577: 7.1% vs. 4.4%, RR 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29–1.74, I 2 = 0%), lower rates of major bleeding (61 RCTs, n = 10,815: 2.2% vs. 4.4%, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.44–0.67, I 2 = 0%), and similar mortality (32 RCTs, n = 7,327: 4.8% vs. 5.2%, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85–1.19, I 2 = 0%). Results were similar when comparing target ranges of approximately 1.5 to 2 versus 2 to 3. Conclusion Moderate quality evidence suggests lower INR targets reduce bleeding but increase thromboembolism in AF. The data are dominated by East-Asian studies, limiting generalizability to Western populations. Until higher quality data demonstrate otherwise, an INR range of 2 to 3 should remain standard for thromboembolic prophylaxis in AF.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document