A comparison of anticoagulation, antiplatelet, and placebo treatment for patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major health concern, which accounts for 1-2% of all hospital admissions. Nevertheless, there remains a knowledge gap concerning which interventions contribute to effective prevention of HF (re)hospitalization. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to systematically review meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Medline to identify eligible studies published in the English language in the past 10 years. Primarily, to synthesize the meta-analyzed data, a best-evidence synthesis was used in which meta-analyses were classified based on level of validity. Secondarily, all unique RCTS were extracted from the meta-analyses and examined. A total of 44 meta-analyses were included which encompassed 186 unique RCTs. Strong or moderate evidence suggested that catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, telemonitoring, and RAAS inhibitors could reduce (re)hospitalization. Additionally, limited evidence suggested that multidisciplinary clinic or self-management promotion programs, beta-blockers, statins, and mitral valve therapy could reduce HF hospitalization. No, or conflicting evidence was found for the effects of cell therapy or anticoagulation. This umbrella review highlights different levels of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. It could guide future guideline development in optimizing care pathways for heart failure patients.

Association between anticoagulant therapy, exacerbations and mortality in a Danish cohort of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary Embolism has been frequently reported in Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AE-COPD). The study aimed to determine whether COPD patients who receive anticoagulant (AC) therapy have a reduced risk of hospitalization due to AE-COPD and death.

METHODS

This nationwide population-based study was based on data from the Danish Register of COPD (DrCOPD), which contains complete data on COPD outpatients between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2018. National registers were used to obtain information regarding comorbidities and vital status. Propensity-score matching and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess AE-COPD and death after one year.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 58,067 patients with COPD. Of these, 5194 patients were on AC therapy. The population was matched 1:1 based on clinical confounders and AC therapy, resulting in two groups of 5180 patients. We found no association between AC therapy and AE-COPD or all-cause mortality in the propensity-score matched population (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.10, p = 0.37). These findings were confirmed in a competing risk analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, we performed an adjusted analysis of the complete cohort and found a slightly increased risk of AE-COPD or death in patients treated with AC therapy. This study found a low incidence of pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

AC therapy was not associated with the risk of hospitalization due to AE-COPD or all-cause mortality.

Stroke and Thromboembolism in Patients with Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm: A Matter of Risk Stratification?

Patients with heart failure (HF) in sinus rhythm (SR) experience an increased incidence of thromboembolic events including stroke. Among patients with HF, high-quality evidence supports the use of oral anticoagulation when atrial fibrillation (AF) is present, but the benefit of anticoagulation in SR in absence of other known indications for anticoagulation is unclear. In four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), warfarin did not improve a composite of clinical outcomes compared with aspirin or placebo in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and SR. A recent RCT assessed the efficacy of the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with HFrEF (including mildly reduced ejection fraction), SR and coronary artery disease. While rivaroxaban had a neutral effect on the primary composite outcome of MI, stroke, or all-cause mortality, exploratory analyses revealed a significant reduction in strokes. It is thus possible that a subgroup of patients with HFrEF who are at high risk of stroke may benefit from anticoagulation. The challenge is to adequately identify this subgroup and to balance the potential benefit of anticoagulation with the risk of major bleeding. There is also an unmet need for evidence around anticoagulation in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and SR. This review explores the current evidence around anticoagulation in patients with HF and SR, identifies challenges regarding outcome definitions and patient selection, and offers suggestions for future research.

The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in coronary artery disease patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To explore the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF) and sinus rhythm (SR).

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI and Wanfang databases from inception to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy in CAD and HF patients in SR were eligible. Statistical analyses were performed using R Programming Language.

RESULTS

Three RCTs included 10,658 adult patients treated with antiplatelet drugs with or without rivaroxaban were ultimately analysed. The average follow-up period was 20.4-24 months. Rivaroxaban had a favourable point estimate in myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke (MI rivaroxaban group (3.83%, 203/5306) vs. APT group (4.52%, 214/4731), RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, P < 0.01, I² = 0%), (stroke: rivaroxaban group (1.60%, 85/5306) vs. APT group (2.52%, 119/4731), RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.85, P < 0.01, I² = 12%) compared with the placebo. Rivaroxaban was comparable to the placebo for all-cause death and major bleeding (all-cause death: rivaroxaban group (12.27%, 688/5606) vs. APT group (14.59%, 737/5052), RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.49-1.06, P > 0.05, I² = 87%), (major bleeding: rivaroxaban group (1.52%, 85/5586) vs. APT group (1.37%, 69/5043), RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.86-1.62, P > 0.05, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In SR patients with CAD and HF, the rates of MI and stroke associated with rivaroxaban combined with APT were lower than those associated with APT alone, and the two treatments had similar rates of all-cause death and major bleeding.

Prevalence, Mechanisms, and Management of Ischemic Stroke in Heart Failure Patients

Heart failure (HF) and stroke, two of the major causes of death worldwide, are closely associated. Although atrial fibrillation (AF), which occurs in more than half of patients with HF, is a major risk factor for stroke, there is a great deal of evidence that HF itself increases the risk of stroke independent of AF. The main mechanism of stroke appears to be thromboembolism. However, previous studies have failed to demonstrate the benefit of warfarin in patients with HF without AF, as the benefit of stroke prevention was counteracted by the increased incidence of major bleeding. Recently, researchers have identified patients with HF at a particularly high risk for stroke who may benefit from anticoagulation therapy. Based on stroke-risk prediction models, it may be possible to make better stroke prevention decisions for patients with HF. Moreover, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants have emerged as anticoagulants with a more favorable risk-benefit profile than warfarin. Future studies on selecting high-risk patients and using more appropriate antithrombotics will lead to improved management of patients with HF.

Survival Benefit of Aspirin in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Background

There is no clear consensus on the use of aspirin (ASA) in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) due to its reported interaction with other cardio-prudent medications. The aim was to evaluate the effect of ASA on all-cause mortality and the frequency of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with CHF using meta-analysis, as well as to study the potential variables interacting with this effect.

Methods

Eligible studies were identified via a PubMed search, the “related article” feature and a manual search of references. Studies were included if they had a study population with CHF of any etiology, compared ASA to no ASA or placebo, and reported one or both of the following outcomes: 1) all-cause mortality and 2) the frequency of hospitalization for heart failure. Data were extracted and verified. We used the inverse variance method in a random-effects model to combine effect sizes.

Results

A total of 14 studies with a combined study population of 64,550 patients were included in the final analysis. All-cause mortality was found to be significantly lower in patients who were taking ASA (P = 0.003). When examining the use of ASA, no significant difference was found in the frequency of hospitalization for heart failure. ASA use was demonstrated to be more beneficial against mortality in studies with a larger percentage of patients on nitrates (P = 0.008) and oral anticoagulants (P = 0.04). A significantly lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure was observed in patients who used oral anticoagulants and ASA concurrently (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

ASA may have beneficial effects on mortality in patients with heart failure of all etiologies.

Rivaroxaban: Expanded Role in Cardiovascular Disease Management-A Literature Review

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, treatment of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and as prophylaxis after hip and knee surgery after approval by the Food and Drug Administration. In the last decade, DOACs were studied for various indications; this review is focused on rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, which is used in an expanded evidence-based fashion for coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, heart failure, malignancy, and prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis in acute medical illnesses.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure in Sinus Rhythm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies

Introduction  There is conflicting evidence on the risk–benefit ratio of oral anticoagulants (OAC) in heart failure (HF) patients without atrial fibrillation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OAC in HF patients in sinus rhythm.

Methods  A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies, comparing OAC with antiplatelet or no treatment/placebo in patients with HF. Outcomes evaluated were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding.

Results  Five RCTs and three cohort studies were included. OAC was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke when compared with no treatment/placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.47, 0.94]) and antiplatelet therapy (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.81]). No significant reduction was found in MI, when OAC was compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: [0.63, 1.07]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: [0.60, 1.81]). The all-cause mortality analysis showed no significant reduction when comparing OAC with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.87, 1.12]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: [0.86, 1.16]). The nonsignificant effect of OAC on all-cause mortality was supported by a meta-analysis of the three cohort studies (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: [0.75, 1.38]). Patients treated with OAC had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: [1.55, 3.00]) and a numerically higher risk when compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: [0.87, 6.49]).

Conclusion  The present study does not support the routine use of OAC in patients with HF in sinus rhythm.