Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Warfarin or Rivaroxaban Versus Apixaban in Patients With Advanced CKD and Atrial Fibrillation: Nationwide US Cohort Study

Oral Anticoagulation Use in Individuals With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is highly prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). It is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which increases as kidney function declines. In the general population and in those with a moderate degree of CKD (creatinine clearance 30-50 mL/min), the use of oral anticoagulation to decrease the risk of stroke has been the standard of care based on a favorable risk-benefit profile that had been established in seminal randomized controlled trials. However, evidence regarding the use of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention is less clear in patients with severe CKD (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) and those receiving maintenance dialysis, as these individuals were excluded from such large randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, the direct oral anticoagulants have invariably usurped vitamin K antagonists as the preferred choice for oral anticoagulation among patients with AF across all strata of CKD based on their well-defined safety and efficacy and multiple pharmacokinetic benefits (e.g., less drug-drug interactions). This review summarizes the current literature on the role of oral anticoagulation in the management of AF among patients with CKD and highlights current deficiencies in the evidence base and how to overcome them.

Zero-contrast left atrial appendage closure, a feasible alternative for patients with a high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to reduce thrombotic risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. This procedure conventionally requires the use of a contrast agent. A significant proportion of patients who undergo this procedure have chronic kidney disease, with a high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review existing literature regarding the feasibility and safety of a zero-contrast LAAC technique.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies comparing a zero-contrast LAAC technique with conventional LAAC up to April 2024. From each study, we extracted baseline characteristics, feasibility, and safety outcomes. A random model meta-analysis was used to compare outcomes between groups.

RESULTS

Five studies reporting data from 367 patients were included. A 100% successful implantation rate was reported in all the zero-contrast groups. The mean number of recaptures reached no significant difference between the groups (mean difference, -0.15; CI, -0.67 to 0.37; I2 = 0%; P = .58). The zero-contrast group had a significantly shorter fluoroscopy time (mean difference, -4.03; CI, -7.72 to -0.34; I2 = 67%; P = .03). Complications related to the procedure, peridevice leak, and device-associated thrombus rates were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Zero-contrast LAAC is a feasible alternative. The success and complication rates are consistent with those of conventional LAAC. Aside from the inherent benefit of zero-contrast exposure, this technique allows a reduction in fluoroscopy time.