Reduced dose direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin with high time in therapeutic range in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Minimally invasive left atrial appendage occlusion plus reduced dose direct oral anticoagulant to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation-the LAAO-PlusRE

The onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) has a direct association with left atrial appendage (LAA) function, as demonstrated by recent studies demonstrating the link between left atrial (LA) wall fibrosis, impaired contractility, and the development of AF. Non-valvular AF (NVAF) affects almost 30 million people worldwide, with this number expected to increase in the next 20 years. It is the main cause of ischemic stroke, with significant subsequent economic and social impact. Currently, the mainstay of stroke prevention in patients with NVAF is oral anticoagulation (OAC), which reduces the incidence of ischemic events at the stake of increased hemorrhagic events. Despite the introduction and widespread use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which almost completely replaced vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), the adherence to OAC is still low, hindering the efficacy of stroke prevention. Percutaneous LAA occlusion (LAAO) is now indicated (class IIB) in patients with NVAF at increased ischemic risk who cannot undergo OAC. Recently published data demonstrated that a reduced dose of DOAC after percutaneous LAAO is superior to long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for stroke prevention in the mid-term. One of the possible pitfalls of percutaneous LAAO is postprocedural peri-device leaks (PDLs) that have been associated with increased thromboembolic events. According to LAAOS III results, surgical LAAO during cardiac surgery brings a 33% reduction in risk of stroke at five years, independently from the OAC regimen with a high rate of complete appendage occlusion. The combination of surgical LAAO and reduced dose DOAC might ensure adequate embolic prevention, lowering the hemorrhagic risk. The present manuscript aims to describe the rationale and design of the Minimally Invasive Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Plus REduced Dose DOAC To Prevent Stroke In Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Randomized Clinical Trial (LAAO-PlusRE).

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

An effective anticoagulation therapy is required for patients with atrial fibrillation because it presents a significant risk of stroke. The current study evaluates the relative safety as well as efficacy of rivaroxaban in patients who are diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. A thorough literature review of relevant databases was conducted, focusing on academic and clinical studies that were published from 2017 onward. Inclusion criteria comprised randomized controlled trials and other observational studies comparing the incidence of stroke and the safety index of rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for data overview reporting and overview. A total of 21 studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. A total of 19/21 studies advocated the adoption of rivaroxaban for minimizing stroke incidence. Rivaroxaban also showed superiority in achieving the therapeutic objectives, i.e., reduction in the incidence of stroke. The results for rivaroxaban against warfarin showed an improved safety index and effectiveness of rivaroxaban. The total effect size for the analysis was calculated to be Z=2.62 (p-value=0.009). The individual effect of all studies favored the "rivaroxaban" group. The heterogeneity in the study was as follows: tau2=0.10; chi2=110.10, df=6; I2=95%. The second analysis for risk reduction and incidence of stroke after rivaroxaban therapy also showed a bias towards rivaroxaban therapy. The combined effect for the analysis was found to be as follows: HR=0.73 ((95% CI: 0.50, 1.07). The total effect was calculated to be Z=1.61 (p-value= 0.10). The heterogeneity was found to be as follows: tau2= 0.20, chi2=89.97, df=6, I2=93%. Standard dosing of rivaroxaban emerges as a preferred strategy for stroke prevention, balancing efficacy and safety. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine treatment guidelines.

Efficacy and Safety of Different Dosing Regimens of Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) poses a substantial risk of stroke, necessitating effective anticoagulation therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) evaluates the efficacy and safety of different dosing regimens of rivaroxaban in patients with AF. A comprehensive search of relevant databases, focusing on studies published from 2017 onward, was conducted. Inclusion criteria comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing standard and reduced dosing of rivaroxaban in AF. Data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment were performed, and a meta-analysis was conducted for relevant outcomes. A total of 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Standard dosing demonstrates a slightly lower risk of composite effectiveness outcomes and safety outcomes (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.94, P=0.01) compared to reduced dosing (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71-0.97, P=0.02). Notable differences in major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and intracranial bleeding favored standard dosing. Hemorrhagic stroke and all-cause stroke rates differed significantly, with standard dosing showing a more favorable profile for ischemic stroke prevention. This study highlights the pivotal role of personalized anticoagulation therapy in AF. Standard dosing of rivaroxaban emerges as a preferred strategy for stroke prevention, balancing efficacy and safety. Clinical decision-making should consider individual patient characteristics and future research should delve into specific subpopulations and long-term outcomes to further refine treatment guidelines. The study bridges evidence from clinical trials to real-world practice, offering insights into the evolving landscape of AF management.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists: Which one is more effective in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for anticoagulation in patients with bioprosthetic valves and atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a subject of debate. A meta-analysis using updated evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves to address this controversy.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up until March 2023. The search aimed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety outcomes of both direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with bioprosthetic valves and atrial fibrillation. The primary outcomes of interest were major bleeding and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Our study demonstrated that despite the difference was not significant, the hazard of all-cause mortality was 2.5% higher in the DOAC group (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.88, 1.19], p-value = .75). Similarly, the hazard of stroke (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.87, 1.32], p-value = .71) and major bleeding (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = [0.89, 1.38], p-value = .36) were found to be respectively 3.2 and 10.7% higher in the DOAC group, although the difference was not significant. However, the hazard of intracranial hemorrhage was found to be 28.8 lower in the DOAC treatment group (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.39, 1.31], p-value = .27), which again was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that in patients undergoing bioprosthetic valve surgery and presenting with AF afterward, DOAC and VKA are similar regarding life-threatening and all-cause mortality outcomes, including major bleeding, stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage.

[Anticoagulation in older patients]

Prescribing oral anticoagulation in older patients for e.g. stroke prophylaxis has proven to be beneficial, but some special risks have to be considered. Renal function may be substantial impaired and dose reduction in at least some of the substances is recommended. Therefore, a closer monitoring of renal function is essential. Further as bleeding risk also increases with age usual scoring lists do less help this therapeutic dilemma than in younger patients. Adequate blood pressure control is essential in preventing intracerebral hemorrhage. Fall risk has to be assessed to initiate early compensation for this risk. Only high and unimprovable fall incidence may outweigh the benefits of oral anticoagulation therapy (>1 hospital admission per month due to a fall incident). Comprehensive geriatric assessment is crucial for early detection of specific adherence problems in older patients and is also helpful for discussion of individual deprescribing options in an end of live situation.