The effect of aspirin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation: The BAATAF Study

Association of Oral Anticoagulation With Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation or Heart Failure: A Comparative Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are common sources of cardioembolism. While oral anticoagulation is strongly recommended for atrial fibrillation, there are marked variations in guideline recommendations for HFrEF due to uncertainty about net clinical benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the comparative association of oral anticoagulation with stroke and other cardiovascular risk in populations with atrial fibrillation or HFrEF in sinus rhythm and identify factors mediating different estimates of net clinical benefit.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched from database inception to November 20, 2019 for randomized clinical trials comparing oral anticoagulation to control. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate a pooled treatment-effect overall and within atrial fibrillation and HFrEF trials. Differences in treatment effect were assessed by estimating I2 among all trials and testing the between-trial-population P-interaction. The primary outcome measure was all stroke. Secondary outcome measures were ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, mortality, myocardial infarction, and major hemorrhage.

Results

Twenty-one trials were eligible for inclusion, 15 (n=19 332) in atrial fibrillation (mean follow-up: 23.1 months), and 6 (n=9866) in HFrEF (mean follow-up: 23.9 months). There were differences in primary outcomes between trial populations, with all-cause mortality included for 95.2% of HFrEF trial population versus 0.38% for atrial fibrillation. Mortality was higher in controls groups of HFrEF populations (19.0% versus 9.6%) but rates of stroke lower (3.1% versus 7.0%) compared with atrial fibrillation. The association of oral anticoagulation with all stroke was consistent for atrial fibrillation (odds ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.42–0.63]) and HFrEF (odds ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47–0.79]; I2=12.4%; P interaction=0.31). There were no statistically significant differences in the association of oral anticoagulation with cardiovascular events, mortality or bleeding between populations.

Conclusions

The relative association of oral anticoagulation with stroke risk, and other cardiovascular outcomes, is similar for patients with atrial fibrillation and HFrEF. Differences in the primary outcomes employed by trials in HFrEF, compared with atrial fibrillation, may have contributed to differing conclusions of the relative efficacy of oral anticoagulation.

The efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in preventing clinical events in atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of arrhythmia. Warfarin reduces the incidence and mortality of strokes in patients with AF. Edoxaban reduces the bleeding risk in patients with AF. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in preventing clinical events in patients with AF through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were retrieved from medical literature databases. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the primary and safety endpoints. In total, five articles (10 trial comparisons) containing 24,836 patients were retrieved. Of these patients, 16,268 (65.5%) received edoxaban and 8,568 (34.5%) received warfarin. Compared with warfarin, edoxaban significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death (CVD), major bleeding, and non-major bleeding (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.93, I2 : 0.0%; RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.59-0.71, I2 : 75.6%; and RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.84, I2 : 79.3%, respectively). Edoxaban did not increase the incidence of stroke, systemic embolic events, myocardial infarction, and adverse events compared with warfarin (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.90-1.11, I2 : 42.8%; RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.67-1.49, I2 : 0.0%; RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.93-1.27, I2 : 0.0%; RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.91-1.10, I2: 46.4%, respectively). This meta-analysis indicated that compared with warfarin, edoxaban can significantly reduce the incidence of CVD and major and non-major bleeding. The anticoagulant effect and safety of edoxaban may be better than those of warfarin.

Wide Variation in Reported Rates of Stroke Across Cohorts of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Background:

Oral anticoagulants decrease ischemic stroke rates in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) but increase the risk of bleeding. For the average patient with AF, the threshold of annual ischemic stroke rate where the benefit of anticoagulation outweighs the bleeding risk (net clinical benefit) has been shown to be ≈1% to 2%. Guideline recommendations for oral anticoagulants in AF are based on the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc stroke risk point scores, assuming that those scores translate to fixed stroke rates. However, the relationship between stroke point scores and annual stroke rates may vary substantially across populations. We sought to comprehensively assess the reported rates of stroke in patients with AF and the relationship of stroke rates to stroke risk point scores.

Methods:

A systematic review of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials enrolled patients with nonvalvular AF not treated with oral anticoagulants.

Results:

Of the 3552 studies screened, we identified 34 studies eligible for analysis. Overall stroke rates in cohort studies were highly heterogeneous (Q=5706.54, P <0.001; I 2 = 99.6%) and ranged from 0.45% to 9.28% per year, despite being of similar objective study quality. The mean North American stroke rate was less than one-third that of the mean European stroke rate ( P <0.0001). However, a random effects regression indicated that between-study variability was not significantly accounted for by cohort region, prospective versus retrospective design, calendar year of study, or outcome event cluster. At a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 1, 76% of cohorts reported ischemic stroke rates <1% per year and only 18% of cohorts reported a stroke rate >2% per year. At a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 2, 27% of cohorts reported stroke rates below 1% per year, 40% reported stroke rates between 1 and 2% per year, and 33% reported stroke rates >2% per year.

Conclusions:

Substantial variation exists across cohorts in overall stroke rates and rates corresponding to CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc point scores. These variations can affect the point score threshold for recommending oral anticoagulants in AF. The majority of cohorts did not observe stroke rates that would indicate a clear expected net clinical benefit for anticoagulating AF patients with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores of 1 or 2.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a significant risk factor for stroke and peripheral thromboembolic events (TEs). Preventing blood clots in the heart to reduce stroke and TE risk is a key goal of AF therapy. Traditional stroke risk assessment tools for patients with nonvalvular AF include the CHADS2 and CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc scores, while long-term outcome data with the newer direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are emerging. The goals of this review were to assess traditional therapies and existing treatment guidelines and to discuss key pharmacologic properties of the DOACS, noting how these may benefit at-risk patients with AF. This narrative review was developed on the basis of the authors’ clinical knowledge, extensive reading of the literature, and broad pharmacy experience in the management of patients with AF. Limitations of oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) include slow onset of action, the need for regular monitoring of their anticoagulation effect, significant food and drug interactions, and unpredictable dose–response properties. Key clinical trial data led to the approvals of apixaban, dabigatran etexilate, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban in the United States to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular AF. With predictable pharmacologic properties and limited drug and/or dietary interactions, the DOACs offer several benefits over traditional oral anticoagulation therapy with VKA. However, they have limitations, including the absence of immediate reversal agents and limited options for monitoring their anticoagulation effects in clinical practice. As experience with the use of DOACs grows, optimized treatment regimens and improved patient care are expected.

Developing alerting thresholds for prospective drug safety monitoring

BACKGROUND

Current methods for prospective drug safety monitoring focus on determining whether and when to generate safety alerts indicating that a new drug may be less safe than a comparator. Approaches are needed to develop safety thresholds that can be used to define whether a new drug is no less than or equally safe as the comparator.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim is to develop a framework for determining which safety statements can be made about a new drug and when they can be made during prospective monitoring.

METHODS

We developed a two-pronged approach to establish safety thresholds for active monitoring. First, we adapted concepts from setting margins in non-inferiority (NI) trials ("NI approach"). Second, we summarized NI margins used in published randomized trials and reviewed publicly available data from the US FDA's website to identify the type and magnitude of evidence used in regulatory decisions involving withdrawals and black box warnings between 2009 and 2013 ("benchmark approach"). We applied the framework to a case study of dabigatran versus warfarin and major bleed.

RESULTS

We provide formulas on both risk ratio and risk difference scales for the NI approach that are analogous to threshold setting in NI trials but based on point estimates and using a maximum tolerable increase rather than a preservation factor. Using this approach, we established a safety threshold for the dabigatran case study that was within range of the findings from the benchmark approach (1.18 to 7.30). Comparing the safety threshold with post-approval studies of dabigatran versus warfarin indicated that no safety statement can be made.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed framework expands the safety statements that can be made in current prospective drug safety monitoring systems. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Drug Therapies for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: An Historical Perspective

Oral anticoagulants are effective in minimizing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation at risk. All have a high degree of efficacy and acceptable safety records. Drug selection should be made on an individual basis. The most important thing is to make the selection. There are many factors to consider in the selection of oral anticoagulants. The new oral anticoagulants offer a measure of improvement over the many limits of warfarin; however, well-managed warfarin is an acceptable and inexpensive option. The efficacy of aspirin is questionable at best, deserving its almost complete disappearance from the guidelines.

Randomized study of surgical isolation of the pulmonary veins for correction of permanent atrial fibrillation associated with mitral valve disease

OBJECTIVE

Chronic permanent atrial fibrillation is often due to mitral valve disease. The Cox maze procedure is the gold standard for treating this arrhythmia. Simpler techniques and ablation methods should have their efficacy tested in clinical practice. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical pulmonary vein isolation as compared with the Cox maze procedure.

METHODS

Sixty patients were randomly assigned to control group, modified maze group (Cox maze III), and surgical isolation of the pulmonary veins (SPVI) group from July 1999 to October 2004. All patients had mitral valve lesions treated concomitantly. Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups.

RESULTS

There were 4 deaths: 3 in the Cox maze group and 1 in the SPVI group (P = .31). The Cox maze group presented longer times of extracorporeal circulation and myocardial ischemia (P < .001). The relative risk of late postoperative development of atrial fibrillation was 0.07 in the SPVI group (P < .001; 95% confidence intervals: 0.02-0.27) and 0.195 in the Cox maze group (P = .002; 95% confidence intervals: 0.07-0.56) as compared with the control group. No difference was found between the SPVI and Cox maze groups concerning prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence (relative risk: 0.358; P = .215; 95% confidence intervals: 0.08-1.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified Cox maze procedure and surgical pulmonary vein isolation were similarly effective in restoring sinus or regular rhythm in permanent atrial fibrillation associated with mitral valve disease. These results favor the adoption of surgical isolation as a preferable technique, simpler and equally effective in controlling atrial fibrillation. The results also can bring further information for understanding the mechanisms involved in origins and treatment of chronic permanent atrial fibrillation.

Application of a decision support tool for anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation affects more than two million Americans and results in a fivefold increased rate of embolic strokes. The efficacy of adjusted dose warfarin is well documented, yet many patients are not receiving treatment consistent with guidelines. The use of a patient-specific computerized decision support tool may aid in closing the knowledge gap regarding the best treatment for a patient.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort analysis of 6,123 Ohio Medicaid patients used a patient-specific computerized decision support tool that automated the complex risk-benefit analysis for anticoagulation. Adverse outcomes included acute stroke, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to compare the group of patients who received warfarin treatment with those who did not receive warfarin treatment, stratified by the decision support tool's recommendation.

RESULTS

Our decision support tool recommended warfarin for 3,008 patients (49%); however, only 9.9% received warfarin. In patients for whom anticoagulation was recommended by the decision support tool, there was a trend towards a decreased hazard for stroke with actual warfarin treatment (hazard ratio 0.90) without significant increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.87). In contrast, in patients for whom the tool recommended no anticoagulation, receipt of warfarin was associated with statistically significant increased hazard of gastrointestinal bleeding (1.54, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that our atrial fibrillation decision support tool is a useful predictor of those at risk of major bleeding for whom anticoagulation may not necessarily be beneficial. It may aid in weighing the benefits versus risks of anticoagulation treatment.

Management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disorder, and confers a substantial mortality and morbidity from stroke, thromboembolism, heart failure, and impaired quality of life. With the increasingly elderly population in the developed world, as well as improvements in the management of myocardial infarction and heart failure, the prevalence of atrial fibrillation is increasing, resulting in a major public-health problem. This Review aims to provide an overview on the modern management of atrial fibrillation, with particular emphasis on pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Irrespective of a rate-control or rhythm-control strategy, stroke prevention with appropriate thromboprophylaxis still remains central to the management of this common arrhythmia. Electrophysiological approaches could hold some promise for a curative approach in atrial fibrillation.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most potent common risk factor for ischemic stroke. The number of Americans with nonvalvular AF is expected to increase markedly over the next several decades, making AF-related stroke an important public health concern. Given the individual and societal burden associated with AF-related stroke, efforts to identify and implement efficacious and acceptably safe therapeutic stroke prevention strategies are paramount. This article reviews the existing randomized trial evidence supporting the efficacy of oral vitamin K antagonists (ie, warfarin) or aspirin for preventing thromboembolism in AF, as well as completed and ongoing studies exploring novel antithrombotic agents including the oral direct thrombin inhibitor, ximelagatran, other antiplatelet agents (eg, clopidogrel), factor Xa inhibitors, and other pharmacological agents and additional therapeutic approaches such as mechanical devices and surgical procedures to obliterate the left atrial appendage.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation

This chapter about antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) is part of the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following (all vitamin K antagonist [VKA] recommendations have a target international normalized ratio [INR] of 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0): In patients with persistent or paroxysmal AF (PAF) [intermittent AF] at high risk of stroke (ie, having any of the following features: prior ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism, age > 75 years, moderately or severely impaired left ventricular systolic function and/or congestive heart failure, history of hypertension, or diabetes mellitus), we recommend anticoagulation with an oral VKA, such as warfarin (Grade 1A). In patients with persistent AF or PAF, age 65 to 75 years, in the absence of other risk factors, we recommend antithrombotic therapy with either an oral VKA or aspirin, 325 mg/d, in this group of patients who are at intermediate risk of stroke (Grade 1A). In patients with persistent AF or PAF < 65 years old and with no other risk factors, we recommend aspirin, 325 mg/d (Grade 1B). For patients with AF and mitral stenosis, we recommend anticoagulation with an oral VKA (Grade 1C+). For patients with AF and prosthetic heart valves, we recommend anticoagulation with an oral VKA (Grade 1C+); the target INR may be increased and aspirin added depending on valve type and position, and on patient factors. For patients with AF of > or = 48 h or of unknown duration for whom pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion is planned, we recommend anticoagulation with an oral VKA for 3 weeks before and for at least 4 weeks after successful cardioversion (Grade 1C+). For patients with AF of > or = 48 h or of unknown duration undergoing pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion, an alternative strategy is anticoagulation and screening multiplane transesophageal echocardiography (Grade 1B). If no thrombus is seen and cardioversion is successful, we recommend anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks (Grade 1B). For patients with AF of known duration < 48 h, we suggest cardioversion without anticoagulation (Grade 2C). However, in patients without contraindications to anticoagulation, we suggest beginning IV heparin or low molecular weight heparin at presentation (Grade 2C).

Left atrial platelet activity with rheumatic mitral stenosis: correlation study of severity and platelet P-selectin expression by flow cytometry

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that platelet activation, evaluated by measuring the secretory substances of platelets (ie, platelet factor 4 and beta-thromboglobulin), occurs in the peripheral blood of patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS). However, the differences in platelet activation between peripheral and atrial blood, and the relationship between regional left atrial platelet P-selectin expression and the severity of MS have never been investigated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 16 patients with symptomatic MS undergoing percutaneous transluminal mitral valvuloplasty were studied (group 1). The fractions of platelets expressing P selectin in the prevalvuloplasty left atrial, right atrial, peripheral venous, and arterial blood were determined by flow cytometry. The mitral valve area was calculated by means of the Doppler pressure half-time method. Peripheral venous platelet activity also was evaluated in 23 control patients (including 15 healthy volunteers who were in sinus rhythm [group 2] and 8 patients who had chronic lone atrial fibrillation [group 3]). The fraction of peripheral venous platelets expressing P selectin among group 1 patients was significantly higher than that of group 2 or 3 patients (p = 0.008). In group 1 patients, the fraction of platelets expressing P selectin in the left atrium was significantly higher than that in the right atrium, the femoral vein, or the femoral artery (p < 0.01). Correlation analysis demonstrated that there was a significantly direct relationship between the severity of MS and the fraction of left atrial platelets expressing P selectin (p = 0.01; r = -0.620). The fraction of peripheral venous platelets expressing P selectin among group 2 patients did not differ from that of group 3 patients

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with rheumatic MS, increased regional left atrial platelet P-selectin expression had a significantly direct relationship with the severity of MS. The increased regional left atrial platelet P-selectin expression was not reflected in peripheral venous blood samples.

Use of resources and cost implications of stroke prophylaxis with warfarin for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) have often been excluded from long-term anticoagulant trials, and therefore patients in clinical practice may have different risk, compliance, and safety considerations from those usually included in such trials.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the use of resources and cost implications of stroke prophylaxis with warfarin in NVAF patients in clinical practice.

METHODS

New patients with NVAF referred to an anticoagulation clinic in the United Kingdom were interviewed in person at their first visit and then by telephone every 4 to 6 weeks by an investigator. They were asked about bleeding events and extra physician visits, procedures, or hospital admissions related to bleeding. They were also asked about the method and the cost of transportation to the anticoagulation clinic and the costs involved in days of work missed by the patient and caregiver. Costs of warfarin treatment consisted of the following: (1) cost of the drug, (2) cost of monitoring lie, international normalized ratio, traveling, nurse visits, work missed. postage), and (3) costs associated with complications (ie, bleeding-related physician visits, hospital admissions, related procedures). admissions, related procedures).

RESULTS

A total of 402 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 72.3 (10.3) years, and 224 patients (55.7%) were men. Mean (SD) follow-up was 19 (8.1) months (range, 1-31 months). Annual event rates were 1.7% (95% CI, 0.4-3.0) for major bleeding and 16.6% (95% CI, 13.0-20.2) for minor bleeding. The mean cost of warfarin treatment per patient per month was 11.0 pounds (95% CI, 10.2-11.6) in patients with no bleeding and 11.9 pounds (95% CI, 10.3-12.5) in patients with minor bleeding (P=NS). The cost was significantly higher in patients with major bleeding ( 299.0 pounds; 95% CI, 74.6-538.9; P<0.001). The total cost of warfarin treatment per patient per year was 159.4 pounds, and the cost to prevent 1 stroke per year was 5260.20 pounds.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice in the United Kingdom, anticoagulation with warfarin for prevention of ischemic stroke appeared to be cost-saving relative to the costs of stroke.

A review of anticoagulation with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Warfarin therapy has proved safe and effective in a number of randomized controlled trials of stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), reducing the risk of stroke in these patients by two thirds. However, participants in the clinical trials were carefully selected and younger than patients in actual clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis sought to determine whether the results of clinical trials in patients with NV can be extrapolated to the general population seen in clinical practice.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search from 1966 to the present was used to identify observational trials of anticoagulation in patients with NVAF that addressed warfarin use, anticoagulation control, efficacy, and complications. The search terms used were atrial fibrillation and anticoagulation.

RESULTS

Although warfarin prophylaxis against stroke in patients with NVAF appeared to be as well tolerated and effective in clinical practice as in clinical trials, it was generally underused, particularly in the elderly. Anticoagulation control was not as good in clinical practice as in clinical trials, although the rates of stroke and major bleeding were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Judicious use of warfarin, tailored to individual stroke risk, seems to be a reasonable policy. Warfarin therapy increases quality-adjusted survival in patients at high risk for stroke, and it is recommended for medium-risk patients unless their risk of bleeding is high or their quality of life while taking warfarin would be poor. Patients at a low risk for stroke will have equivalent health outcomes and incur lower costs if treated with aspirin. Despite the increased risk of hemorrhage in elderly patients, the net benefit of warfarin therapy is greater in this age group because of the higher risk of stroke. Active involvement of patients and their caregivers in an anticoagulation service setting may improve outcomes of anticoagulation therapy.

Evaluation and management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is a common cardiac arrhythmia with significant sequela. The goals of treating atrial fibrillation are rate control, prevention of thromboembolism, and maintenance of sinus rhythm. The epidemiology and pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation is reviewed, as well as strategies and recommendations for achieving therapeutic goals. The authors also review investigational therapeutic options using nonpharmacologic modalities.

Management of patients with syncope and cardiac arrhythmias in an emergency department observation unit

Syncope is an ideal condition for the emergency observation setting because of its difficulty in diagnosis, many causes, high liability, and variable diagnostic approaches. Hospital admissions can be averted with appropriate patient selection for a short-term observation period. Atrial fibrillation is a common presenting condition in the emergency department. With aggressive management, the appropriately selected patient can have restoration of sinus rhythm and be safely discharged home.

Antithrombotic therapy in heart failure: a randomized comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin (HELAS)

It is uncertain whether anti-thrombotic treatment reduces the incidence of thrombo-embolism in patients with heart failure, so there is a need for a large scale controlled study to assess the effects of anti-thrombotic therapy in this setting. We report the design of a randomized controlled multicenter double blind trial examining the effects of aspirin, warfarin and placebo in patients with heart failure on the risk of thrombo-embolism. We planned to recruit 6000 patients with heart failure without contraindications to anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents and to follow them for a mean time of 2 years following randomization. The study was planned to determine the rate of thrombo-embolic and haemorrhagic events and death among patients randomized to aspirin, warfarin and placebo, stratified according to the presence or absence of underlying coronary disease. Ancillary studies parallel to the main study will attempt to identify clinical and echocardiographic risk factors for thrombo-embolism and will also examine whether hemostatic or neurohormonal mechanisms contribute to an increase in the risk of thrombo-embolism in patients with heart failure. We hoped that the results of the study would improve the clinical management and cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with heart failure. However, the recruitment of patients proved more difficult than expected and a number of centers decided not to participate. To avoid a great delay it was decided by the principal investigators and submitted to the executive committee to terminate enrolment in this study when 300 patients had been enrolled, and accept that this is a pilot study.

Primary prevention of arterial thromboembolism in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in primary care: randomised controlled trial comparing two intensities of coumarin with aspirin

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of aspirin and coumarin in preventing thromboembolism in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in general practice.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

729 patients aged >/=60 years with atrial fibrillation, recruited in general practice, who had no established indication for coumarin. Mean age was 75 years and mean follow up 2. 7 years.

SETTING

Primary care in the Netherlands.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients eligible for standard intensity coumarin (international normalised ratio 2.5-3.5) were randomly assigned to standard anticoagulation, very low intensity coumarin (international normalised ratio 1.1-1.6), or aspirin (150 mg/day) (stratum 1). Patients ineligible for standard anticoagulation were randomly assigned to low anticoagulation or aspirin (stratum 2).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Stroke, systemic embolism, major haemorrhage, and vascular death.

RESULTS

108 primary events occurred (annual event rate 5.5%), including 13 major haemorrhages (0.7% a year). The hazard ratio was 0.91 (0.61 to 1.36) for low anticoagulation versus aspirin and 0.78 (0.34 to 1.81) for standard anticoagulation versus aspirin. Non-vascular death was less common in the low anticoagulation group than in the aspirin group (0.41, 0.20 to 0.82). There was no significant difference between the treatment groups in bleeding incidence. High systolic and low diastolic blood pressure and age were independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

In a general practice population (without established indications for coumarin) neither low nor standard intensity anticoagulation is better than aspirin in preventing primary outcome events. Aspirin may therefore be the first choice in patients with atrial fibrillation in general practice.

Primary prevention of arterial thromboembolism in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation: the PATAF trial study design

Patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation (NRAF) have a higher risk of thromboembolism than patients in sinus rhythm. Several trials have been conducted to establish the best preventive regimen in patients with NRAF, but not in the primary-care setting. The Primary Prevention of Arterial Thromboembolism in Nonrheumatic Atrial Fibrillation (PATAF) study, a primary-care-based trial, was set up to compare the preventive efficacy of low-intensity anticoagulation (AC), target range International Normalized Ratio (INR) 1.1 < INR < 1.6 and regular-intensity AC (2.5 < INR < 3.5) therapies with that of aspirin 150 mg/d for the occurrence of thromboembolism in NRAF patients. Patients eligible for regular-intensity AC were randomly assigned to aspirin at 150 mg/d, low-intensity AC, or regular AC in group I. In cases of noneligibility for regular AC, the trial randomized patients between aspirin and low-intensity AC (assigned to group II). Primary outcome events were stroke (including intracranial hemorrhage), systemic embolism, major hemorrhage, or vascular death. Analysis of the data was based on Cox regression to compute the hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval, using the likelihood ratio test. The trial randomized 729 patients. Patient enrollment and follow-up has been stopped, and the final analysis is now complete. We shall publish the main results as soon as possible.

Impact of long-term ECG recording on the detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients after an acute ischemic stroke

An ECG recording time of 24 hours has a low yield to detect atrial arrhythmias in patients after an acute ischemic stroke. The present study investigated whether a recording time of 72 instead of 24 hours detects paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in more patients. The study prospectively included 82 consecutive patients 2-3 weeks after an acute ischemic stroke. All patients had sinus rhythm in the resting ECGs and no history of atrial fibrillation or flutter. The frequency of atrial fibrillation was assessed after 24, 48, and 72 hours of ambulatory ECG monitoring. An ECG monitoring time of 72 hours documented paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in five (6%) patients. The episode of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation occurred in only one patient within 24 hours. The other patients had their first episode of atrial fibrillation between 24 and 48 hours (n = 2) and between 48 and 72 hours (n = 2). These five patients were older (age = 70 +/- 5 years), whereas the mean age of the remaining patients was 59 +/- 13 years. All five patients had cardiovascular disease in comparison to 36 of 77 patients and reported palpitations in comparison to 6 of 77 of the remaining patients. In conclusion, ambulatory ECG monitoring over 72 hours detected after the first recording day four of five patients in whom paroxysmal atrial fibrillation could be documented for the first time. The 72-hour recording time improved, compared to the 24-hour period, the detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients after an ischemic stroke. It seems to be more efficient to perform prolonged ECG recording mainly in older patients with a cardiovascular disease and/or a history of palpitations.

Alternate-day dosing of aspirin in atrial fibrillation. LASAF Pilot Study Group

BACKGROUND

In inhibiting platelet function, aspirin seems to reduce the risk of cerebrovascular accidents, death, and acute coronary events in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. Aspirin given on alternate days might have the advantage of not hindering prostacyclin synthesis. Thus a study was performed to evaluate whether aspirin used in this way might improve the results reported with daily treatment.

METHODS

To test this hypothesis 285 patients (age range 40 to 82 years) with primary atrial fibrillation were randomly allocated in an open multicenter trial to 3 groups: (1) group A1, treated with 125 mg aspirin daily (n = 104); (2) group A2, treated with 125 mg aspirin on alternate days (n = 90), (3) group C (controls), who were not treated with anticoagulants or platelet inhibitors (n = 91).

RESULTS

Inclusion took place from January 1990 to July 1994, and follow-up ended in May 1996 (range 1 to 62 months). Sudden cardiac death in association with heart failure or angina was the most common final event: 4.8%, 1.1%, and 6.6% in groups A1, A2, and C, respectively. Both cardiovascular mortality rate and the incidence of main events were reduced, in relative terms, by 80% (1. 1% in group A2 vs 6.6% in group C). The differences were smaller between group A1 and C but did not reach statistical significance. The reduction of main cardiovascular events between groups A1 and A2 was statistically significant (7.7% vs 2.2% = 5.5%; 95% confidence limits 1%, 11%; P <.05). The difference did not reach statistical significance when other end points were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

In this trial low-dose aspirin given on alternate days seemed to be an efficient intervention in preventing major cardiovascular events. Regarding strokes, however, aspirin was less efficient. Mortality rate in the 3 groups as a whole was associated with heart failure and the development of ischemic heart disease.

Long-term oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with unstable angina or suspected non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: organization to assess strategies for ischemic syndromes (OASIS) pilot study results

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute ischemic syndromes (AIS) suffer high rates of recurrent ischemic events despite aspirin treatment. Long-term therapy with oral anticoagulants in addition to aspirin may reduce this risk. We studied the effects of long-term warfarin at 2 intensities in patients with AIS without ST elevation in 2 consecutive randomized controlled studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In phase 1, after the cessation of 3 days of intravenous antithrombotic therapy, 309 patients were randomized to receive fixed low-dose (3 mg/d) warfarin for 6 months that produced a mean international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.5+/-0.6 or to standard therapy. Eighty-seven percent of patients received aspirin in both groups. The rates of cardiovascular (CV) death, new myocardial infarction (MI), and refractory angina at 6 months were 6.5% in the warfarin group and 3.9% in the standard therapy group (relative risk [RR], 1. 66; 95% CI, 0.62 to 4.44; P=0.31). The rates of death, new MI, and stroke were 6.5% in the warfarin group and 2.6% in the standard therapy group (RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.80 to 7.75; P=0.10). The overall rate of rehospitalization for unstable angina was 21% and did not differ significantly between the groups. Four patients in the warfarin group (2.6%) and none in the control group experienced a major bleed (RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.80 to 7.75), and there was a significant excess of minor bleeds in the warfarin group (14.2% versus 2.6%; RR, 5.46; 95% CI, 1.93 to 15.5; P=0.001). In phase 2, the protocol was modified, and 197 patients were randomized <48 hours from the onset of symptoms to receive warfarin at an adjusted dose that produced a mean INR of 2.3+/-0.6 or standard therapy for 3 months. Eighty-five percent received aspirin in both groups. The rates of CV death, new MI, and refractory angina at 3 months were 5. 1% in the warfarin group and 12.1% in the standard group (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.15; P=0.08). The rates of all death, new MI, and stroke were 5.1% in the warfarin group and 13.1% in the standard therapy group (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.05; P=0.05). Significantly fewer patients were rehospitalized for unstable angina in the warfarin group than in the control group (7.1% and 17.2%, respectively; RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.96; P=0.03). Two patients in the warfarin group and 1 in the control group experienced a major bleed, and there was a significant excess of minor bleeds in the warfarin group (28.6% versus 12.1%; RR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.37 to 4.36; P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with moderate-intensity warfarin (INR, 2.0 to 2.5) plus aspirin but not low-intensity warfarin (INR, 1.5) plus aspirin appears to reduce the rate of recurrent ischemic events in patients with AIS without ST elevation.

Significance of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation complicating acute myocardial infarction in the thrombolytic era. SPRINT and Thrombolytic Survey Groups

BACKGROUND

Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is considered a frequent complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), associated with increased in-hospital and long-term mortality rates. This notion is based on data collected before thrombolysis and additional modern methods of treatment became widely available, and no information is available on the significance of PAF in the general population with AMI in the thrombolytic era. The aim of the present study was to define the incidence, associated clinical parameters, and short- and long-term prognostic significance of PAF in patients with AMI in the thrombolytic era.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, nationwide survey was conducted of 2866 consecutive patients admitted with AMI in all 25 coronary care units in Israel during January/February 1992, 1994, and 1996 (thrombolytic era [TE]). The data were compared with a previous Israeli study of 5803 patients with AMI hospitalized in 1981 through 1983 (prethrombolytic era [PTE]). Patients in the TE with PAF were older and had a worse risk profile than those without PAF. PAF in the TE was independently associated with increased 30-day (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.87) and 1-year (relative risk, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 1.68) mortality rates. The incidence of PAF (8.9% and 9.9%) and the 30-day (25.1% and 27.6%) and 1-year (38.4% and 42.5%) mortality rates of patients with PAF were similar in the TE and PTE, although PAF in the TE occurred in older and sicker patients than those in the PTE. After adjustment for conventional risk factors, PAF was associated with significantly lower 30-day (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.94) and 1-year (relative risk, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.88) mortality rates compared with the PTE.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AMI who develop PAF in the TE have significantly worse short- and long-term prognoses than patients without PAF, mostly due to their worse risk profile. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with PAF in the TE have a better overall outcome than counterparts in the PTE, probably reflecting the better management of patients with AMI in the TE.

The medical management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is an extremely common arrhythmia that is associated with significant sequelae. Certain aspects of therapy, such as anticoagulation, are studied in well-constructed randomized trials. Other therapy, such as the maintenance of sinus rhythm with antiarrhythmic agents, is supported by limited evidence. This article reviews the epidemiology and medical treatment of this arrhythmia, addressing anticoagulation, ventricular rate control, and restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Randomized trials in progress that attempt to answer important questions in the management of atrial fibrillation are also discussed.

Atrial fibrillation: antiarrhythmic therapy versus rate control with antithrombotic therapy

Atrial fibrillation is a major health problem in the United States, but the best strategies for treating it have not been rigorously determined in clinical studies. Specifically, there is a paucity of data comparing the approach of maintaining sinus rhythm using prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy with the approach of controlling the ventricular response to atrial fibrillation while reducing embolic events with concomitant antithrombotic therapy. Until ongoing randomized trials are completed, which patients benefit most from a specific approach cannot be determined with certainty. In general, the most reasonable strategies include (1) the restoration of sinus rhythm (without prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy) after the patient's first episode of atrial fibrillation; and (2) the maintenance of sinus rhythm (including the use of prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy) in patients who remain symptomatic despite adequate rate control, and who are not at high risk for proarrhythmia and/or are unlikely to maintain sinus rhythm. The risks and benefits need to be carefully weighed in patients with truly asymptomatic atrial fibrillation. Many patients may require multiple attempts to maintain sinus rhythm. Current investigative treatment modalities (e.g., ablation techniques, atrial implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, new antiarrhythmic agents) are likely to alter the current approaches to atrial fibrillation.

Therapeutic strategies for atrial fibrillation. The value of decision analysis

In the absence of randomized, controlled trials of low-dose amiodarone in atrial fibrillation or a randomized, controlled trial of ventricular rate control versus antifibrillatory therapy, a Markov decision analysis is useful in comparing different therapeutic strategies for atrial fibrillation. The decision analysis described compared warfarin, quinidine, and low-dose amiodarone in patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic chronic, persistent atrial fibrillation. This model suggests that electrical cardioversion followed by low-dose amiodarone is a relatively safe, effective alternative to long-term warfarin therapy.

Pharmacologic therapy of atrial flutter

Atrial flutter is a relatively rare but nonetheless important arrhythmia. Its mechanism and anatomy have been defined as right atrial macroreentry. It responds to treatment with a variety of antiarrhythmic agents but, in general, drug efficacy for acute termination is low. The addition of pacing to drug therapy markedly improves the success rate for restoration of sinus rhythm. Useful antiarrhythmic agents include amiodarone, sotalol, disopyramide, flecainide, and propafenone, but definitive efficacy studies have not been performed. The risk of provoking 1:1 AV conduction and a marked increase in ventricular response rate is always present. AV nodal blocking drugs (digoxin and verapamil) probably offer protection from this unwanted effect, but the prevalence of 1:1 conduction and the efficacy of AV nodal blockade remain to be established. When drug management fails, there is a place for radiofrequency ablation. Little is known about the thromboembolic risk of atrial flutter. As a consequence, the role of prophylactic anticoagulation is uncertain. Current interest in atrial flutter will ensure that these and other clinical questions are answered in the near future.

Fibrin D-dimer and beta-thromboglobulin as markers of thrombogenesis and platelet activation in atrial fibrillation. Effects of introducing ultra-low-dose warfarin and aspirin

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated increased markers of thrombogenesis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), suggesting the presence of a hypercoagulable or prothrombotic state. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of introducing ultra-low-dose warfarin (1 mg), conventional warfarin, and aspirin. (300 mg) therapy on thrombogenesis and platelet activation in AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We measured sequential changes in plasma fibrin D-dimer (an index of thrombogenesis) and beta-thromboglobulin (beta-TG, a measure of platelet activation) in 51 patients with chronic AF before and at 2 and 6 weeks after randomization to either 1 mg warfarin or 300 mg aspirin (phase 1). Then all patients were started on conventional warfarin therapy (phase 2) with samples taken 2 and 6 weeks later. Pretreatment results were compared with those from 26 healthy control subjects in sinus rhythm. Baseline (pretreatment) beta-TG and D-dimer levels in patients with AF were elevated compared with those of control subjects (P < .001). In phase 1, there were no significant changes in median levels of fibrin D-dimer or beta-TG, despite warfarin 1 mg or aspirin 300 mg. With standard warfarin therapy (phase 2), there was a reduction in median beta-TG at 6 weeks (P = .025) and a sequential reduction in median D-dimer levels at 2 (P = .001) and 6 (P < .001) weeks compared with baseline levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AF have increased intravascular thrombogenesis and platelet activation compared with patients in sinus rhythm. Introduction of ultra-low-dose warfarin (1 mg) or aspirin 300 mg does not significantly alter these markers, although conventional warfarin therapy reduces beta-TG and fibrin D-dimer levels. This is consistent with the beneficial effect of full-dose warfarin in preventing stroke and thromboembolism in AF and suggests that ultra-low-dose warfarin and aspirin may not exert similar beneficial effects.

Contemporary management of atrial fibrillation

The incidence of atrial fibrillation approximately doubled for every 10-year increment in age in the Framingham Heart Study cohort; thus physicians will be faced with an increasing patient population with atrial fibrillation. Hypertension is observed to be the most common associated risk factor in both sexes. The management of patients with atrial fibrillation is evolving as a result of a number of published studies. Calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers are emerging as the preferred choices for rate control rather than digoxin. Low-dose anticoagulation therapy has shown beneficial effects not only in primary prevention, but also for secondary prevention of thromboembolism. Thus, patients who cannot be successfully cardioverted should be anticoagulated if there are no contraindications (Table 3) and if they do not fall into the low-risk group--defined as patients under the age of 65 without risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, previous stroke). Patients not eligible for anticoagulation should be on aspirin therapy. Patients with lone atrial fibrillation are not at higher risk for thromboembolism than the general population; therefore, they can be managed without anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy. Antiarrhythmic treatment should be approached cautiously; amiodarone in low doses is the most effective and safe treatment, but this remains controversial.

An approach to therapy of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias: an algorithm versus individualized therapy

Approaches to the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, atrial tachycardia, atrioventricular (AV) reentrant tachycardia, and AV nodal reentrant tachycardia, continue to evolve. Within the past two decades, many new and effective treatments have become available. These include several new antiarrhythmic agents, ablative therapies, pacing and surgical modalities, and cardioversion/defibrillation techniques. This paper provides an algorithm for the treatment of these supraventricular arrhythmias which includes therapy for the acute episode as well as the prevention of subsequent episodes of the tachyarrhythmia.

Effect of low-intensity warfarin anticoagulation on level of activity of the hemostatic system in patients with atrial fibrillation. BAATAF Investigators

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation (BAATAF) demonstrated that low-intensity warfarin anticoagulation can, with safety, sharply reduce the rate of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The beneficial effect of warfarin was presumably related to a decrease in clot formation in the cardiac atria and subsequent embolization.

METHODS

To assess the effect of warfarin therapy on in vivo clotting in patients in the BAATAF, we measured the plasma level of prothrombin activation fragment F1+2. One sample was obtained from 125 patients from the BAATAF; 62 were taking warfarin and 63 were not taking warfarin (control group).

RESULTS

The warfarin group had a 71% lower mean F1+2 level than the control group (mean F1+2 of 1.57 nmol/L in the control group compared with a mean of 0.46 nmol/L in the warfarin group; P < .001). F1+2 levels were higher in older subjects but were consistently lower in the warfarin group at all ages. Fifty-two percent of patients in the control group were taking chronic aspirin therapy at the time their F1+2 level was measured. Control patients taking aspirin had F1+2 levels very similar to control patients not taking aspirin (mean of 1.52 nmol/L for control patients on aspirin compared with 1.64 nmol/L for control patients off aspirin; P > .1).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that prothrombin activation was significantly suppressed in vivo by warfarin but not aspirin among patients in the BAATAF. These findings correlate with the marked reduction in ischemic stroke noted among patients in the warfarin treatment group observed in the BAATAF.

Overview of the randomized trials to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation

Epidemiologic studies have shown that atrial fibrillation (AF) raises the risk of stroke approximately fivefold, and that because AF is so common among the stroke-prone elderly, it accounts for about 15% of all strokes. Five recently completed, randomized trials consistently found that the anticoagulant warfarin can prevent most of the additional stroke risk due to AF. This effect was seen at low doses. The trials have also demonstrated that warfarin therapy can be safe if careful patient selection and monitoring are implemented. Three of the trials provided inconsistent, and currently inconclusive evidence about the efficacy of aspirin. The trials have not settled the anticoagulation decision for all patients. Warfarin remains a demanding and risky therapy, which many patients and physicians do not find attractive. Future research should attempt to refine the risk of stroke, and of major hemorrhage during warfarin therapy among patients with AF, and should seek safer, less demanding, yet effective antithrombotic regimens.