Managing anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation: current issues and future strategies

Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation

IMPORTANCE

Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019.

EXPOSURE

Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications.

RESULTS

A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

CHA2DS2-VASc score and exercise capacity of patients with coronary artery disease participating in cardiac rehabilitation programs

BACKGROUND

Exercise based cardiac rehabilitation improves prognosis and quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease. We aimed to investigate whether the CHA2DS2-VASc score may be a predictor of improvement in exercise capacity in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients participating in a cardiac rehabilitation program.

METHODS

Included were patients following a hospital admission due to ACS and were subsequently referred for an exercise based cardiac rehabilitation during 2010-2015. Participants were divided into three groups of low (1-2), intermediate (3) and high (4≤) CHA2DS2-VASc score. Exercise capacity was evaluated by a treadmill stress test at baseline and following 9 months. The primary endpoint was the percent of patients who achieved at least 25% improvement in exercise capacity.

RESULTS

The 597 patients included in the study had a mean age of 65.5±9.3 years and consisted of 22.5% women. The primary endpoint of at least 25% improvement in exercise capacity following 9 months of cardiac rehabilitation occurred more frequently in patients in the high CHA2DS2-VASc group compared to the intermediate and low CHA2DS2-VASc score groups (47.3, 29.9 and 36.1% in the high, intermediate and low CHA2DS2-VASc score groups respectively, P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

The CHA2DS2-VASc score may serve as a predictor of exercise capacity improvement. Its use for tailoring specific cardiac rehabilitation programs for ACS patients may yield further improvement in functional capacity and better utilization of resources.

Use of CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores to predict subsequent myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in patients with acute coronary syndrome: data from Taiwan acute coronary syndrome full spectrum registry

Background

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients have a wide spectrum of risks for subsequent cardiovascular events and death. However, there is no simple, convenience scoring system to identify risk of adverse outcomes. We investigated whether CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores were useful tools to assess the risk for adverse events among ACS patients.

Methods

This observational prospective study was conducted at 39 hospitals. Totally 3,183 patients with ACS were enrolled, and CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores were calculated. The primary endpoint was occurrence of adverse event, including subsequent myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, within 1 year of discharge.

Results

CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores were significant predictors of adverse events in separate multivariate regression analyses. A Kaplan-Meier analysis of CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores of ≥2 showed a higher rate of adverse events as compared with scores of <2 (P<0.001;log-rank test). CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was better than CHADS₂ score in predicting subsequent adverse events; the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve increased from 0.66 to 0.70 (p<0.001). Patients with CHADS₂ scores of 0 or 1 were further classified according to CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, using a cutoff value of 2. The rate of adverse events significantly differed between those with a score of <2 and those with a score of ≥2 (4.1% vs.10.7%, P<0.001).

Conclusions

CHADS₂ and CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores were useful predictors of subsequent adverse events in ACS patients.