Association of Ischemic Stroke, Major Bleeding, and Other Adverse Events With Warfarin Use vs Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With a History of Intracranial Hemorrhage

Effectiveness and safety in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in US healthcare claims

INTRODUCTION

There is a paucity of real-world studies examining the risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients switching from warfarin to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). This retrospective study was conducted to compare the stroke/SE and MB risks between patients switched from warfarin to apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban in real-world clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study used data from four United States commercial claims databases from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2019. The study population included NVAF patients initially treated with warfarin and switched to apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban within 90 days of their warfarin prescription ending. Patients were matched 1:1 between the DOACs in each database using propensity scores and then pooled for the final analysis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the risk of stroke/SE and MB.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The final population consisted of 2,611 apixaban-dabigatran, 12,165 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 2,672 dabigatran-rivaroxaban pairs. Apixaban vs. dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.96) and MB (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91). Apixaban vs. rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07) and a lower risk of MB (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.52-0.68). There was no significant difference in either risk between dabigatran and rivaroxaban. These results provide important insights into how the risks of stroke/SE and MB for NVAF patients vary when switching from warfarin to different DOACs.

Association between antithrombotic drug regimen changes and clinical outcomes after stroke in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The impact of post-stroke antithrombotic regimen in atrial fibrillation is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe antithrombotic therapy prescribing patterns after ischemic stroke and the impact on outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 23,165 patients with atrial fibrillation experiencing ischemic stroke were identified. Subsequent post-stroke events included recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, mortality, and composite outcomes.

RESULTS

Of those who were nonanticoagulated before a stroke, 33.5% remained nonanticoagulated and 39.2% were prescribed only antiplatelet agents (APs) after a stroke. Compared with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after stroke, there was a significant increase in ischemic stroke and mortality in nonanticoagulated patients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.09 and 3.92) and AP users (aHR, 1.32 and 1.28). Post-stroke warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding compared with NOACs (aHR, 1.23). Of 769 patients receiving NOACs before stroke and continuing NOACs after stroke, those switching to a different NOAC were associated with significantly higher risk of ischemic stroke (aHR, 2.07) and composite outcomes (aHR, 1.36-1.85) with no difference in intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, or mortality compared with those receiving the same NOAC after stroke. Of patients receiving NOACs before stroke, the risks of clinical events were similar between patients taking NOACs alone and those taking NOAC plus AP after stroke.

CONCLUSION

NOAC alone after stroke was associated with a better clinical outcome compared with nonanticoagulation, AP, or warfarin. Of patients already taking NOACs before stroke, the addition of AP did not confer additional benefits compared with NOACs alone. A change of NOAC types after stroke was associated with a 2-fold higher risk of ischemic stroke and composite outcomes.

Reversal and resumption of anticoagulants in patients with anticoagulant-associated intracerebral hemorrhage

The use of anticoagulants has become more frequent due to the progressive aging population and increased thromboembolic events. Consequently, the proportion of anticoagulant-associated intracerebral hemorrhage (AAICH) in stroke patients is gradually increasing. Compared with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients without coagulopathy, patients with AAICH may have larger hematomas, worse prognoses, and higher mortality. Given the need for anticoagulant reversal and resumption, the management of AAICH differs from that of conventional medical or surgical treatments for ICH, and it is more specific. Understanding the pharmacology of anticoagulants and identifying agents that can reverse their effects in the early stages are crucial for treating life-threatening AAICH. When patients transition beyond the acute phase and their vital signs stabilize, it is important to consider resuming anticoagulants at the right time to prevent the occurrence of further thromboembolism. However, the timing and strategy for reversing and resuming anticoagulants are still in a dilemma. Herein, we summarize the important clinical studies, reviews, and related guidelines published in the past few years that focus on the reversal and resumption of anticoagulants in AAICH patients to help implement decisive diagnosis and treatment strategies in the clinical setting.

The optimal antithrombotic strategy for post-stroke patients with atrial fibrillation and extracranial artery stenosis-a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

In post-stroke atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who have indications for both oral anticoagulant (OAC) and antiplatelet agent (AP), e.g., those with carotid artery stenosis, there is debate over the best antithrombotic strategy. We aimed to compare the risks of ischemic stroke, composite of ischemic stroke/major bleeding and composite of ischemic stroke/intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) between different antithrombotic strategies.

METHODS

This study included post-stroke AF patients with and without extracranial artery stenosis (ECAS) (n = 6390 and 28,093, respectively) identified from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Risks of clinical outcomes and net clinical benefit (NCB) with different antithrombotic strategies were compared to AP alone.

RESULTS

The risk of recurrent ischemic stroke was higher for patients with ECAS than those without (12.72%/yr versus 10.60/yr; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.104, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.052-1.158, p < 0.001). For patients with ECAS, when compared to AP only, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy was associated with lower risks for ischaemic stroke (aHR 0.551, 95% CI 0.454-0.669), the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding (aHR 0.626, 95% CI 0.529-0.741) and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH (aHR 0.577, 95% CI 0.478-0.697), with non-significant difference for major bleeding and ICH. When compared to AP only, warfarin monotherapy was associated with higher risks of major bleeding (aHR 1.521, 95% CI 1.231-1.880), ICH (aHR 2.045, 95% CI 1.329-3.148), and the composite of ischaemic stroke and major bleeding. With combination of AP plus warfarin, there was an increase in ischaemic stroke, major bleeding, and the composite outcomes, when compared to AP only. NOAC monotherapy was the only approach associated with a positive NCB, while all other options (warfarin, combination of AP-OAC) were associated with negative NCB.

CONCLUSIONS

For post-stroke AF patients with ECAS, NOAC monotherapy was associated with lower risks of adverse outcomes and a positive NCB. Combination of AP with NOAC or warfarin did not offer any benefit, but more bleeding especially with AP-warfarin combination therapy.

The Prescription trends and dosing appropriateness analysis of novel oral anticoagulants in ischemic stroke patients: a retrospective study of 9 cities in China

Background: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been recommended by guidelines as the first-line drugs for preventing cardiogenic stroke. We aimed to provide an overview of the prescription trends and dosing appropriateness of NOACs in China. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of NOAC prescriptions using the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperation Project data from 2016 to 2022. Various patient features, such as gender, age, city, year, source, department visited, original diagnosis, dosing, cost, and insurance type, were collected and analyzed to examine the trends and dosing appropriateness of NOAC usage in ischemic stroke patients. Results: 62,014 NOAC prescriptions were analyzed, including 16,602 for dabigatran, 45,253 for rivaroxaban, and 159 for apixaban. 85.14% of the patients were aged 65 or above, and tertiary hospitals accounted for 95.97% of NOAC prescriptions. NOAC prescriptions rose from 1828 in 2016 to 13,998 in 2021 but dropped to 13,166 in 2022. The percentage of annual prescriptions for NOACs among stroke patients has increased from 0.05% in 2016 to 0.37% in 2022. Total drug cost increased from ¥704541.18 in 2016 to ¥4128648.44 in 2021, then decreased to ¥1680109.14 in 2022. Prescriptions were divided into 48,321 appropriate and 11,262 inappropriate dosing groups, showing significant differences in medications, age, year, city type, hospital level, source, insurance type, and department visited (all p < 0.001). The median drug cost for inappropriate dosing was higher than for appropriate dosing (¥55.20 VS ¥83.80). The top comorbidities in ischemic stroke patients were atrial fibrillation (35.30%), hypertension (32.75%), and coronary heart disease (16.48%). Conclusion: The application of NOACs in the Chinese population is increasing. Our findings highlight the frequent deviation from labeled dosing of NOACs in clinical practice. Continued efforts are necessary to promote the appropriate use of NOACs according to the standard dosage in the drug insert.

Risk of Incident Atrial Fibrillation and Subsequent Use of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Dementia

BACKGROUND

 Dementia and atrial fibrillation (AF) have many shared risk factors. Besides, patients with dementia are under-represented in randomized trials, and even if AF is present, oral anticoagulants (OACs) are not prescribed frequently. This study aimed to report the incidence of newly diagnosed AF in dementia patients, and the impacts of use of vitamin K antagonist (VKA; e.g., warfarin) and non-VKA OAC (NOACs) on stroke and bleeding outcomes.

METHODS

 Our study utilized the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 554,074 patients with dementia were compared with 554,074 age- and sex-matched patients without dementia regarding the risk of incident AF. Among patients with dementia who experienced incident AF, the risks of clinical events of patients treated with warfarin or NOACs were compared with those without OACs (reference group).

RESULTS

 The risk of incident AF was greater for patients with dementia compared with those without (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.054; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.040-1.068 for all types of dementia, aHR: 1.035; 95% CI: 1.020-1.051 for presenile/senile dementia, and aHR: 1.125; 95% CI: 1.091-1.159 for vascular dementia). Among patients with dementia and experienced incident AF, warfarin use was associated with a higher risk of ischemic stroke (aHR: 1.290; 95% CI: 1.156-1.440), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH; aHR: 1.678; 95% CI: 1.346-2.090), and major bleeding (aHR: 1.192; 95% CI: 1.073-1.323) compared with non-OACs. NOAC use was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke (aHR: 0.421; 95% CI: 0.352-0.503) and composite risk of ischemic stroke or major bleeding (aHR: 0.544; 95% CI: 0.487-0.608) compared with non-OACs. These results were consistent among the patients after the propensity matching.

CONCLUSION

 In this large nationwide cohort, the risk of newly diagnosed AF was higher in patients with dementia (all dementia, presenile/senile dementia, and vascular dementia) compared with those without dementia. For patients with dementia who experienced incident AF, NOAC use was associated with a better clinical outcome compared with non-OAC. Patients with dementia require a holistic approach to their care and management, including the use of NOACs to reduce the risks of clinical events.

Impact of cerebral small vessel disease burden and drug level at admission on direct oral anticoagulant associated intracerebral hemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-associated intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a catastrophic complication. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between computed tomography (CT)-based cerebrovascular small vessel disease (SVD) burden and DOAC-ICH as well as the DOAC concentration upon hospital admission and ICH outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included two cohorts: (1) DOAC-ICH: patients who suffered from DOAC-ICH and underwent drug level measurements upon admission; (2) DOAC-non-ICH: stable DOAC users who underwent head CT without ICH during treatment. We categorized the DOAC levels of the DOAC-ICH patients as low (<50 ng/mL), medium (50-300 ng/mL), and high (>300 ng/mL). The CT-based SVD burden (including white matter lesions [WML], lacunes, and cerebral atrophy) was evaluated, and SVD scores (range, 0-3) were used to evaluate SVD severity.

RESULTS

A total of 43 DOAC-ICH patients and 177 DOAC-non-ICH patients were enrolled. DOAC-ICH patients were more likely to have WML, lacunes, or cerebral atrophy compared to DOAC-non-ICH patients. After adjustment, the SVD burden was associated with DOAC-ICH, with a higher risk of more severe SVD (SVD score of 2; odds ratio [OR], 10.3 [3.17, 33.3]; score of 3; OR, 16.8 [4.50, 62.6]). The proportions of patients with high, medium, and low drug levels in the DOAC-ICH group were 16.3%, 55.8%, and 27.9%, respectively. Additionally, the high-level group displayed a larger hematoma size and had worse functional outcomes at 3 months than the other two groups.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The severity of SVD burden was associated with DOAC-ICH. Furthermore, high DOAC levels in ICH were associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes. To address the potential selection bias from these two cohorts, a prospective study to investigate the co-contribution of drug levels and SVD to DOAC-ICH is essential.

Risk of Bleeding Following Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated With Alteplase

Importance

Current guidelines advise against intravenous alteplase therapy for treatment of acute ischemic stroke in patients previously treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).

Objective

To evaluate the risk of bleeding and mortality after alteplase treatment for acute ischemic stroke among patients treated with NOACs compared to those not treated with NOACs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, population-based cohort study was conducted in Taiwan using data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database from January 2011 through November 2020 and included 7483 patients treated with alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis incorporating the results of the study with those of previous studies was performed, and the review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO.

Exposures

NOAC treatment within 2 days prior to stroke, compared to either no anticoagulant treatment or warfarin treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was intracranial hemorrhage after intravenous alteplase during the index hospitalization (the hospitalization subsequent to alteplase administration). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding events and mortality during the index hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used to control potential confounders. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of outcome events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

Results

Of the 7483 included patients (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [12.7] years; 2908 [38.9%] female individuals and 4575 [61.1%] male individuals), 91 (1.2%), 182 (2.4%), and 7210 (96.4%) received NOACs, warfarin, and no anticoagulants prior to their stroke, respectively. Compared to patients who were not treated with anticoagulants, those treated with NOACs did not have significantly higher risks of intracranial hemorrhage (risk difference [RD], 2.47% [95% CI, -4.23% to 9.17%]; OR, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.62-3.03]), major bleeding (RD, 4.95% [95% CI, -2.56% to 12.45%]; OR, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.83-3.45]), or in-hospital mortality (RD, -4.95% [95% CI, -10.11% to 0.22%]; OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.15-1.29]) in the propensity score-matched analyses. Furthermore, the risks of bleeding and mortality were not significantly different between patients treated with NOACs and those treated with warfarin. Similar results were obtained in the meta-analysis.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study with meta-analysis, compared to no treatment with anticoagulants, treatment with NOACs prior to stroke was not associated with a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, or mortality in patients receiving intravenous alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Prior Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin for secondary stroke prevention among adult patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke.

METHODS

Major repositories were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT subgroups, and observational studies (OBSs, divided in claims and non-claims). Occurrences of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and major bleeding were outcomes of interest. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals (95%CIs) were pooled using random-effects models for each study design. Claims studies were analyzed separately from non-claims, while RCT subgroups were grouped with OBSs (non-claims) as the randomization was broken.

RESULTS

Of 8647 articles, 20 were included (one RCT, six RCT subgroups, nine claims, and four non-claims). Comparing DOACs to warfarin, pooled HRs (95%CI) were consistently in favor of DOACs although some did not reach statistical significance: for ischemic stroke, 0.84 (0.66-1.07) in claims; 0.90 (0.77-1.06) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for systemic embolism, 0.77 (0.62-0.96) in claims; 0.86 (0.77-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for all-cause mortality, 0.57 (0.33-0.99) in claims; 0.87 (0.79-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for ICH, 0.72 (0.39-1.33) in claims; 0.51 (0.38-0.67) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; and for major bleeding, 0.86 (0.71-1.03) in claims; 0.90 (0.76-1.08) for non-claims and RCT subgroups.

CONCLUSION

DOACs were associated with better efficacy and safety profiles than warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with prior stroke, more specifically a lower risk of systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and ICH.

Effectiveness and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Previous Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous stroke is inconclusive, especially in patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH). We aim to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with a history of stroke.

METHODS

We searched studies published up to December 10, 2022, on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies on adults with AF and previous ischaemic stroke (IS) or IrCH receiving either NOACs or warfarin and capturing outcome events (thromboembolic events, ICrH, and all-cause mortality) were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including 19,489 patients with previous IS) and fifteen observational studies (including 132,575 patients with previous IS and 13,068 patients with previous ICrH) were included. RCT data showed that compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96), ICrH (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). In analysing observational studies, similar results were retrieved. Moreover, patients with previous ICrH had a lower OR on thromboembolic events than those with IS (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95 vs. OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93) in the comparison between NOACs and warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational data showed that in AF patients with previous stroke, NOACs showed better clinical performance compared to warfarin and the benefits of NOACs were more pronounced in patients with previous IrCH versus those with IS. RCT data also showed NOACs are superior to warfarin. However, current RCTs only included AF patients who survived an IS, and further large RCTs focused on patients with previous ICrH are warranted.

Anticoagulant in atrial fibrillation patients with prior intracranial haemorrhage: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of resuming anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with prior intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and which anticoagulant to choose are controversial.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until 13 February 2022. Thirteen eligible articles (17 600 participants) were collected, including 11 real-world studies (n=17 296) and 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n=304). Compared with no anticoagulants, oral anticoagulation (OAC) was not associated with an increased risk of ICH recurrence (HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.25), p=0.41), but with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding (HR 1.66 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.30), p<0.01). Meanwhile, OAC was associated with a reduced risk of ischaemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism (IS/SE) (HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.70), p<0.01) and all-cause death (HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.52), p<0.01) compared with no anticoagulants. Furthermore, compared with warfarin, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were associated with a significant reduction of ICH recurrence (HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), p<0.01), while the risk of IS/SE and all-cause mortality were comparable between warfarin and NOACs.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with AF with prior ICH, OAC is associated with a significant reduction in IS/SE and all-cause mortality without increasing ICH recurrence, but may increase major bleeding risk. Compared with warfarin, NOACs had a better safety profile and comparable efficacy. Further larger RCTs are warranted to validate these findings.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients without previous oral anticoagulants or stable under warfarin: a nationwide cohort study

AIMS

Investigations on non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients without taking any oral anticoagulants (OACs) or staying well on warfarin were limited. We aimed to investigate the associations between stroke prevention strategies and clinical outcomes among AF patients who were previously well without taking any OACs or stayed well on warfarin for years.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The retrospective analysis included a total of 54 803 AF patients who did not experience an ischaemic stroke or intra-cranial haemorrhage (ICH) for years after AF was diagnosed. Among these patients, 32 917 patients who did not receive OACs were defined as the 'original non-OAC cohort' (group 1), and 8007 patients who continuously received warfarin were defined as the 'original warfarin cohort' (group 2). In group 1, compared to non-OAC, warfarin showed no significant difference in ischaemic stroke (aHR 0.979, 95%CI 0.863-1.110, P = 0.137) while those initiated NOACs were associated with lower risk (aHR 0.867, 95%CI 0.786-0.956, P = 0.043). When compared to warfarin, the composite of 'ischaemic stroke or ICH' and 'ischaemic stroke or major bleeding' was significantly lower in the NOAC initiator with an aHR of 0.927 (95%CI 0.865-0.994; P = 0.042) and 0.912 (95%CI 0.837-0.994; P < 0.001), respectively. In group 2, when compared to warfarin, those shifted to NOACs were associated with a lower risk of ischaemic stroke (aHR 0.886, 95%CI 0.790-0.993, P = 0.002) and major bleeding (aHR 0.849, 95%CI 0.756-0.953, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The NOACs should be considered for AF patients who were previously well without taking OACs and those who were free of ischaemic stroke and ICH under warfarin for years.

Anticoagulation medication in nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage survivors with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The relative effectiveness of anticoagulation agents in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who survive an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is unknown. This study was performed to examine the comparative effectiveness of different oral anticoagulation (OAC) on clinical outcomes in this group of patients.

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing different OAC (direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC] and warfarin) for the treatment of patients with AF who sustained ICH. Outcomes included repeat ICH, thromboembolic events, and all-cause mortality. The values derived from the surface under the cumulative ranking curve were obtained to rank the treatment hierarchy.

RESULTS

We identified 12 studies (two RCTs and ten observational studies) involving 23,265 patients; 346 patients were treated with any OAC agents; 5,006 received DOAC; 5,271 received warfarin; 12,007 received antiplatelet or no therapy, and 635 did not received relevant therapy. Both DOAC and warfarin (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) were superior to antiplatelet or no therapy in preventing thromboembolic events. Moreover, DOAC also showed superiority in preventing thromboembolic events (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83), repeat ICH (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.67), and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.56) than warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests DOACs may be a reasonable alternative to anti-platelet therapy and warfarin for patients with AF who experienced ICH. However, given the available evidence is primarily observational, further validation by ongoing trials directly comparing these two classes of drugs are needed.

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients with intracranial hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The benefits and risks of starting anticoagulation therapy, such as direct oral anticoagulations (DOACs) or warfarin, in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of starting oral anticoagulation (OAC) and non-oral anticoagulation in these patients.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to 01 May 2022 for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation patients with intracranial hemorrhage. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to evaluate bias risks for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. An effects model was applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies.

Results: We analyzed data from two randomized controlled trials (304 patients) and seven Cohort studies (17,477 patients). Compared to non-oral anticoagulation, starting oral anticoagulation therapy reduced the risk of Ischemic Stroke/Systemic Embolism (SE) (aHR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55–0.57) and all-cause death (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35–0.80) in atrial fibrillation patients and a prior history intracranial hemorrhage. Starting oral anticoagulation therapy did not increase the risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.66–1.74), but increased the risk of major bleeding (aHR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.00–1.91) than no oral anticoagulation therapy. The DOACs had a lower risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE (aHR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.70–1.00), recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49–0.82), and all-cause death (aHR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48–0.88) compared to warfarin. According to subgroup analyses, starting oral anticoagulation therapy have a higher risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage than non-oral anticoagulation therapy (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.36–1.81) for Asians.

Conclusion: After intracranial hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation patients, restarting or initiating oral anticoagulation therapy decreased the risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE and all-cause death but did not increase the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage. Direct oral anticoagulations have better efficacy and safety than warfarin if oral anticoagulation therapy is started. However, starting oral anticoagulation increases the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage in the Asian region.

Memantine as a neuroprotective agent in ischemic stroke: Preclinical and clinical analysis

The primary mechanism for neuron death after an ischemic stroke is excitotoxic injury. Excessive depolarization leads to NMDA-mediated calcium entry to the neuron and, subsequently, cellular death. Therefore, the inhibition of the NMDA channel has been proposed as a neuroprotective measure in ischemic stroke. The high morbimortality associated with stroke warrants new therapies that can improve the functional prognosis of patients. Memantine is a non-competitive NMDA receptor antagonist which has gained attention as a potential drug for ischemic stroke. Here we analyze the available preclinical and clinical evidence concerning the use of memantine following an ischemic stroke. Preclinical evidence shows inhibition of the excitotoxic cascade, as well as improved outcomes in terms of motor and sensory function with the use of memantine. The available clinical trials of high-dose memantine in patients poststroke have found that it can improve patients' NIHSS and Barthel index and help patients with poststroke aphasia and intracranial hemorrhage. These results suggest that memantine has a clinically relevant neuroprotective effect; however, small sample sizes and other study shortcomings limit the impact of these findings. Even so, current studies show promising results that should serve as a basis to promote future research to conclusively determine if memantine does improve the outcomes of patients' post-ischemic stroke. We anticipate that future trials will fill current gaps in knowledge, and these latter results will broaden the therapeutic arsenal for clinicians looking to improve the prognosis of patients poststroke.

Associations of Warfarin Use with Risks of Ischemic Cerebrovascular Events and Major Bleeding in Patients with Hyperthyroidism-Related Atrial Fibrillation

The use of oral anticoagulants for patients with new-onset hyperthyroidism-related atrial fibrillation (AF) is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits of warfarin therapy in this population. This retrospective cohort study used a data-cut of Taiwan Health and Welfare Database between 2000 and 2016. We compared warfarin users and nonusers among AF patients with hyperthyroidism. We used 1:2 propensity score matching to balance covariates and Cox regression model to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was risk of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), and the secondary outcome was major bleeding. After propensity score matching, we defined 90 and 168 hyperthyroidism-related AF patients with mean (SD) age of 59.9 ± 13.5 and 59.2 ± 14.6 in the warfarin-treated group and untreated group separately. The mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc scores for the two groups were 2.1 ± 1.6 and 1.8 ± 1.5, respectively. Patients with hyperthyroidism-related AF receiving warfarin had no significant risk of ischemic stroke/TIA (adjusted HR: 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-2.56, p = 0.717) compared to nonusers. There was a comparable risk of major bleeding between those receiving warfarin or not (adjusted HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.56-1.47, p = 0.702). The active-comparator design also demonstrated that warfarin use had no significant association with the risk of stroke/TIA versus aspirin use (adjusted HR: 2.43; 95% CI: 0.68-8.70). In conclusion, anticoagulation therapy did not have a statistically significant benefit on ischemic stroke/TIA nor risk of bleeding, among patients with new-onset hyperthyroidism-related AF under a low CHA2DS2-VASc score, by comparing those without use.

Analysis of Adverse Events in the Treatment of Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation with Oral Anticoagulants: Data from the "ANTEY" Observational Study

Rationale. Therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is based on finding the optimal balance of efficacy and safety of these drugs. Data from observational studies are an additional source of information for the adverse events (AEs) of pharmacotherapy. Objective: To investigate pharmacotherapy AEs with OACs in the “ANTEY” prospective observational study in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Material and Methods: A total of 201 people were enrolled (83 (41.3%) were women). The age of subjects was 71.1 ± 8.7 years (data presented as mean with standard deviation). The study protocol included two face-to-face visits (contacts V0 and V1) and one follow-up (FU) phone contact which were made with the patient at an interval of 6 months. At V0, all patients were recommended to take one of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs); starting from V1, warfarin could have been prescribed or NOAC could have been changed. Information about AEs and OACsadministration was collected at V0, V1, and FU. Results. During 1 year of observation, 15 out of 201 patients refused to take OACs, and 186 initiated the recommended drug. Rivaroxaban was initiated in 93 patients, dabigatran in 46, apixaban in 40, and warfarin in 7 patients. There were 55 AEs, 25 of which were serious (SAEs), including 4 deaths. Of the 30 AEs, there were 18 bleedings: eight (8.6%) occurred with the administration of rivaroxaban; four (8.5%) with dabigatran, three (7.5%) with apixaban, and three (42.9%) with warfarin. Differences in the incidence of bleeding events between NOACs and warfarin are statistically significant (p = 0.025). Any AEs increased the chance of nonadherence to treatment nine-fold: OR = 9.2 (CI95%: 3.6−23.5), p < 0.0001. Conclusions. The most typical and common AEs in real-world clinical practice settings treatment with OACs were bleedings, the incidence of which was approximately 8% to 9% in the treatment with NOACs and was much higher with warfarin, bleedings in the treatment with OACs are statistically significantly associated with nonadherence to the use of these drugs in the future.

Concurrent use of statins decreases major bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients taking direct oral anticoagulants—A nationwide cohort study

Background

Statins are frequently prescribed with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and previous studies have raised concerns about the increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage or other major bleeding in concurrent statins and DOACs use. The objective of this study is to evaluate the risk of major bleeding in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients taking DOACs with or without statins.

Methods

This nationwide, retrospective cohort study used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, enrolled a total of 90,731 non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients receiving rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban or edoxaban from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2017. Major bleeding was defined as a hospitalization or emergency department visit with a primary diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage, gastrointestinal tract bleeding, urogenital tract bleeding, or other sites of bleeding. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and differences of major bleeding between person-quarters of DOACs with or without statins were estimated using a Poisson regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score.

Results

50,854 (56.0%) of them were male with a mean age of 74.9 (SD, 10.4) years. Using DOACs without statins as a reference, the adjusted IRR for all major bleedings in concurrent use of DOACs and statins was 0.8 (95% CI 0.72–0.81). Lower major bleeding risk was seen in both low-to-moderate-intensity statins (IRR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.74–0.84) and high-intensity statins (IRR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.74–0.88). Concurrent use of DOACs and statins decreased the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage with an IRR of 0.8 (95% CI 0.66–0.93), and gastrointestinal tract bleeding with an IRR of 0.7 (95% CI 0.69–0.79). The protective effect of statins on intracerebral hemorrhage was observed only in female patients (IRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.89), but not in male patients (IRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70–1.08).

Conclusions

Among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who were taking DOACs, concurrent use of statins decreased major bleeding risk, including intracerebral hemorrhage and gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Considering this and other cardioprotective effects, statins should be considered in all eligible patients prescribed with DOACs.

Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulants and Adverse Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Intracranial Hemorrhage

Background

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is excluded in most anticoagulation randomized clinical trials (RCTs), so oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy is still the conventional treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after ICH. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and safety outcomes of OAC for these patients.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases up to March 2022 for RCTs and observational studies exploring the effect of OAC in patients with AF after ICH. The effectiveness outcomes included stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, and all-cause death, whereas the safety outcomes were major bleeding and recurrent ICH. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from each study were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

A total of 14 studies were included. The OAC therapy that was performed reduced the risks of stroke or systemic embolism (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.81), ischemic stroke (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.82), and all-cause death (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.70) but had a higher risk of major bleeding (HR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.94-2.40) and showed no difference in recurrent ICH (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.53-1.55) compared to the no OAC therapy. With the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy, a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98), all-cause death (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.84), and recurrent ICH (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86) was observed against the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) therapy.

Conclusion

The OAC therapy (especially VKA) revealed superior effectiveness in patients with AF after ICH, and the superiority of NOAC was also found, but some related evidence was limited.

Effectiveness and Safety of Antithrombotic Medication in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Intracranial Hemorrhage: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND:

For patients with atrial fibrillation who survive an intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH), the decision to offer oral anticoagulation (OAC) is challenging and necessitates balancing risk of thromboembolic events with risk of recurrent ICrH.

METHODS:

This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and safety of OAC and/or antiplatelets in patients with atrial fibrillation with nontraumatic ICrH. Bibliographic databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched. Articles on adults with atrial fibrillation with spontaneous ICrH (intracerebral, subdural, and subarachnoid), receiving antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS:

Twenty articles (50 470 participants) included 2 randomized controlled trials (n=304)‚ 8 observational studies, 8 cohort studies, and 2 studies that meta-analyzed individual-level data from observational studies. OAC therapy was associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (summary relative risk [sRR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30–0.86], heterogeneity I 2 =2%; P =0.39, n=5 studies) and all-cause mortality (sRR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.38–0.71], heterogeneity I 2 =0; P =0.44, n=3 studies). OAC therapy was not associated with an increased risk of recurrent ICrH (sRR, 1.44 [95% CI, 0.38–5.46], heterogeneity I 2 =70%, P =0.02, n=5 studies). Nonvitamin K antagonist OACs were more effective at reducing the risk of thromboembolic events (sRR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44–0.97], heterogeneity I 2 =72%, P =0.03, n=3 studies) and were associated with a lower risk of recurrent ICrH (sRR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.40–0.67], heterogeneity I 2 =0%, P =0.43, n=3 studies) than warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS:

In nontraumatic ICrH survivors with atrial fibrillation, OAC therapy is associated with a reduced risk of thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality without significantly increasing risk of recurrent ICrH. This finding is primarily based on observational data, and further larger randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate or refute these findings.

Risk of Ischemic Bowel Disease in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Warfarin or Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants

Background

Although atrial fibrillation (AF) is a risk factor for ischemic bowel disease, data regarding the incidence of ischemic bowel disease in patients with anticoagulated AF were limited.

Methods

The present study used the Taiwan NHIRD and included newly diagnosed patients with AF aged ≥ 20 years without ischemic bowel disease from 2012 to 2018. A total of 69,549 patients taking warfarin or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) constituted the final study group. We aimed to study the incidence of ischemic bowel disease in patients with AF receiving warfarin or NOACs. Secondary endpoints were also analyzed, including ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, and composite adverse events (ischemic bowel disease or ICH or major bleeding).

Results

There were 43,787 patients taking NOACs and 25,762 patients taking warfarin. The overall incidence rate of ischemic bowel disease was 0.036% per year and increased with the CHA2DS2-VASc scores [0.013% for patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 (men) or 1 (women), 0.022% for those with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 (men) or 2 (women), and 0.039% for those with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 (men) or ≥ 3 (women)]. The risk of ischemic bowel disease was similar between NOAC and warfarin groups (0.036%/year vs. 0.037%/year; adjusted hazard ratio 0.802, p = 0.430), whereas the NOAC group had a significantly lower risk of secondary endpoints compared to the warfarin group.

Conclusion

We reported the incidence of ischemic bowel disease in patients with anticoagulated AF from a nationwide cohort database and observed a positive correlation between the increase of CHA2DS2-VASc scores and the incidence rate. Moreover, NOAC was as effective as warfarin for the risk of ischemic bowel disease.

In Search of the Optimal Antithrombotic Regimen for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Survivors with Atrial Fibrillation

Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) constitutes 10-15% of all strokes, and is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. Survivors of ICH, especially those with atrial fibrillation (AF), are at risk for both recurrent hemorrhagic and ischemic cerebrovascular events. A conundrum in the field of vascular neurology, neurosurgery, and cardiology has been the decision to initiate or resume versus withhold anticoagulation in survivors of ICH with AF. To initiate anticoagulation would decrease the risk of ischemic stroke but may increase the risk of hemorrhage. To withhold anticoagulation maintains a lower risk of hemorrhage but does not decrease the risk of ischemic stroke. In this narrative review, we discuss the evidence for and against the use of antithrombotics in ICH survivors with AF, focusing on recently completed and ongoing clinical trials.

XaMINA: A Real-World, Prospective, Observational Study of Treatment-Naïve Patients Treated with Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation in Asia

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism have been demonstrated in Asian and non-Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in multiple studies. However, limited published data exist on its use specifically in treatment-naïve patients from the Asia region. Patients in South Korea and Taiwan can now receive rivaroxaban as first-line therapy, allowing for data generation in this patient group.

METHODS

XaMINA was a prospective, real-world, multicenter, single-arm, observational cohort study of patients with NVAF in South Korea and Taiwan naïve to anticoagulation and initiating rivaroxaban. The primary outcome was major bleeding; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic thromboembolic events, and treatment persistence.

RESULTS

In total, 1094 patients were included and the follow-up was 1 year. The baseline mean CHADS₂ score was 1.63 ± 0.98, mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 2.92 ± 1.42, and mean HAS-BLED score was 1.00 ± 0.75. The primary outcome occurred in 20 (1.8%) patients [incidence rate 2.1 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI 1.35-3.25)]. Thromboembolic events occurred in 9 (0.8%) patients, of whom 5 (0.5%) had stroke, 3 (0.3%) myocardial infarction, and 1 (0.1%) a transient ischemic attack. There were no cases of non-central nervous system systemic embolism, and 735 (67.2%) patients persisted with rivaroxaban treatment for 1 year.

CONCLUSION

XaMINA demonstrated low incidence rates of major bleeding events and thromboembolic events in patients with NVAF newly initiating rivaroxaban in South Korea and Taiwan, consistent with previous real-world studies reconfirming the results of the ROCKET AF study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT03284762) on 15 September 2017.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with prior bleeding events: a retrospective analysis of administrative claims databases

Introduction

There are a paucity of real-world data examining effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with prior bleeding.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included data from 5 insurance claims databases and included NVAF patients prescribed OACs with prior bleeding. One-to-one propensity score matching was conducted between NOACs and warfarin and between NOACs in each database. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and MB.

Results

A total of 244,563 patients (mean age 77; 50% female) with prior bleeding included 55,094 (22.5%) treated with apixaban, 12,500 (5.1%) with dabigatran, 38,246 (15.6%) with rivaroxaban, and 138,723 (56.7%) with warfarin. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.70, 0.83]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.87]) had a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. warfarin. Apixaban (HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and dabigatran (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.96]) had a lower risk of MB vs. warfarin. Apixaban patients had a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. dabigatran (HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.86]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.96]) and a lower risk of MB than dabigatran (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.81]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.68]).

Conclusions

In this real-world analysis of a large sample of NVAF patients with prior bleeding, NOACs were associated with similar or lower risk of stroke/SE and MB vs. warfarin and variable risk of stroke/SE and MB against each other.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11239-022-02660-2.

Data on NOAC effectiveness and safety in NVAF patients with prior bleed history are lacking.

This study included data on OAC-treated NVAF patients with a history of bleeding.

NOACs were associated with similar or lower risk of stroke/SE and MB vs. warfarin.

NOACs were associated with variable risk of stroke/SE and MB against each other.

This study further demonstrated the effectiveness and safety profile when comparing NOACs to warfarin. The findings could aid to inform the discussion on the benefits and risks in the decision making process for NVAF patients who had a prior bleed.

Major Bleeding Risk in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Co-Medicated With Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants and Antipsychotics

Major bleeding risks associated with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) used with and without concurrent antipsychotics in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) were assessed. A total of 98,863 patients with non-valvular AF receiving at least one NOAC prescription from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database were enrolled. Major bleeding was defined as a primary diagnosis of intracranial or gastrointestinal hemorrhage or bleeding at other sites. The adjusted incidence rate difference (AIRD) per 1,000 person-years and adjusted rate ratio of major bleeding were estimated using Poisson regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score. A total of 8,037 major bleeding events occurred during 705,521 person-quarters with NOAC prescriptions. Antipsychotics were used in 26.35% of NOAC-exposed patients. Compared to using NOAC alone, co-medication of either typical (AIRD: 79.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.63–87.72) or atypical (AIRD: 40.5, 95% CI: 33.64–47.35) antipsychotic with NOAC had a significant increase in the adjusted incidence rate per 1,000 person-years of major bleeding. The concomitant use of a NOAC with chlorpromazine (AIRD: 103.87, 95% CI: 51.22–156.52), haloperidol (AIRD: 149.52, 95% CI: 125.03–174.00), prochlorperazine (AIRD: 90.43, 95% CI: 78.55–102.32), quetiapine (AIRD: 44.6, 95% CI: 37.11–52.09), or risperidone (AIRD: 41.55, 95% CI: 22.86–60.24) (All p < 0.01) showed a higher adjusted incidence rate of major bleeding than using NOACs alone. The concomitant use of typical (chlorpromazine, haloperidol, or prochlorperazine) or atypical (quetiapine or risperidone) antipsychotic with NOACs was associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding.

Early rhythm control and the risks of ischaemic stroke, heart failure, mortality and adverse events when performed early (<3 months)

BACKGROUND

In EAST-AFNET 4 trial, early rhythm control was associated with better clinical outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, whether the better outcomes of patients assigned to rhythm control were solely due to "early" intervention or because of more regular and structured follow up was unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the findings of EAST trial are applicable to the 'real world' clinical setting, where a less structured management protocol is operated.

METHODS

From 2001 to 2016, 301,064 newly-diagnosed AF patients were identified from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Among these patients, 62,649 AF patients receiving antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation within 1 year after AF being diagnosed were categorized as the early rhythm control group, and the remaining 238,415 patients were defined as usual care group. Risk of clinical events were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to usual care, early rhythm control was associated with a lower adjusted risk of ischemic stroke(aHR 0.771; p<0.001), heart failure(aHR 0.851; p<0.001), acute myocardial infarction(aHR 0.915; p<0.001), mortality(aHR 0.794; p<0.001) and composite adverse events(aHR 0.823; p<0.001). Compared to usual care, the lower risks of ischemic stroke(aHR 0.746), heart failure(aHR 0.819), mortality(aHR 0.777) and composite adverse events(aHR 0.802) associated with early rhythm control were even more evident when performed early (<3months)(pint<0.001). Principal results were generally consistent for majority of subgroups studied and among the cohort after propensity matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Early rhythm control, especially when performed earlier (<3months), was associated with a lower risk of adverse events than usual care among patients with early AF.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants with Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with a History of Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) require oral anticoagulation to prevent ischemic stroke. However, oral anticoagulation may cause bleeding, and patients with AF and a history of bleeding were excluded from pivotal trials comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and a history of bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of retrospective studies and clinical trials using the PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to May 2021.

RESULTS

Overall, 56,697 patients from six studies were included. NOACs significantly reduced the risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.91; p = 0.005), fatal ischemic stroke (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39-0.61; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.98; p = 0.04), major bleeding events (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.84; p < 0.001), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.82; p < 0.001), fatal ICH (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20-0.56, p < 0.001), and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.96; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs showed better efficacy and safety profile compared with warfarin in patients with AF and a history of bleeding. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings.

Post-Intracranial Hemorrhage Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Background

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of withholding or restarting antithrombotic agents, and different antithrombotic therapies among patients with atrial fibrillation post‐intracranial hemorrhage.

Methods and Results

This is a nationwide retrospective cohort study involving patients with atrial fibrillation receiving antithrombotic therapies who subsequently developed intracranial hemorrhage between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017. The risk of ischemic stroke (IS), recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and all‐cause mortality were investigated between patients receiving no treatment versus patients reinitiating oral anticoagulants (OACs) or antiplatelet agents, and warfarin versus non‐vitamin K antagonist OACs. We applied inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the baseline characteristics and Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) of different outcomes of interest. Compared with no treatment, OACs reduced the risk of IS (HR, 0.61; 0.42–0.89), without increase in the risk of ICH (1.15, 0.66–2.02); antiplatelet agent users showed a similar risk of IS (1.13, 0.81–1.56) and increased risk of ICH (1.81, 1.07–3.04). Use of OACs or antiplatelet agents did not reduce the risk of all‐cause mortality (0.85, 0.72–1.01; and 0.88, 0.75–1.03, respectively). Compared with warfarin, non‐vitamin K antagonist OAC users showed a similar risk of IS (0.92, 0.50–1.70), non‐significantly reduced risk of ICH (0.53, 0.22–1.30), and significantly reduced all‐cause mortality (0.60, 0.43–0.84).

Conclusions

OACs are recommended in patients with atrial fibrillation and intracranial hemorrhage because they reduced the risk of IS with no increase in the risk of subsequent ICH. Non‐vitamin K antagonist OACs are recommended over warfarin owing to their survival benefits.

Does Pre-existing Anticoagulation or Antiplatelet Therapy Increase the Risk of Traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Progression?

BACKGROUND

Isolated traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (tSAH) is a common finding in mild traumatic brain injury that often results in transfer to a tertiary center. Patients prescribed blood-thinning medications (BTs) are believed to be at higher risk of clinical or radiographic worsening.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rates of radiographic progression and need for neurosurgical intervention in patients with tSAH who are on anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapies with those who are not.

METHODS

Analysis using a retrospective cohort design identified patients older than 18 years with isolated tSAH and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 15 on admission. Clinical information including use of BTs, administration of reversal agents, radiographic progression, and need for neurosurgical intervention was collected. Patients on BTs were divided into AP, AC, and AP/AC groups based on drug type.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-four patients were included with 203 in the non-BT group and 181 in the BT group. Overall, 2.1% had worsening scans, and none required operative intervention. There was no difference in radiographic worsening between the non-BT and BT groups (2.4% vs 1.6%; P = 1.00). Crosswise comparison revealed no difference between the non-BT group and each BT subtype (AP, AP/AC, or AC). The non-BT group was more likely to have radiographic improvement than the BT group (45.8% vs 30.9%; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Neurologically intact patients on BTs with isolated tSAH are not at increased risk of radiographic progression or neurosurgical intervention. The presence of BTs should not influence management decisions for increased surveillance.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonists Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves are at high risk for thromboembolic events. The pooled efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), as a class, relative to warfarin in this population is not well-known. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs relative to warfarin in patients with bioprosthetic valves or valve repair.

METHODS

We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing NOACs to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves or valve repair. We pooled outcomes for stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and major bleeding.

RESULTS

We included 4 trials with 1379 patients, of whom 723 (52.4%) received a NOAC. Mean follow-up ranged from 90 days to 2.8 years. In the pooled analysis, stroke or systemic embolism was significantly lower in patients treated with NOACs (1.9%) compared with warfarin (3.7%) (odds ratio [OR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.85; P = .02). Ischemic stroke (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.18-2.93), hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.05), cardiovascular death (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.38-1.62), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.55-1.62) were not significantly different among groups. Major bleeding was significantly lower in patients treated with NOAC (2.8%) compared with warfarin (4.7%) (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.88; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves or valve repair, NOACs are associated with a reduced incidence of thromboembolic events and major bleeding as compared with warfarin. Thus, NOACs may be considered a preferred option for this patient population.

2021 Focused update of the 2017 consensus guidelines of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

The consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been published in 2017 which provided useful clinical guidance for cardiologists, neurologists, geriatricians, and general practitioners in Asia-Pacific region. In these years, many important new data regarding stroke prevention in AF were reported. The Practice Guidelines subcommittee members comprehensively reviewed updated information on stroke prevention in AF, and summarized them in this 2021 focused update of the 2017 consensus guidelines of the APHRS on stroke prevention in AF. We highlighted and focused on several issues, including the importance of AF Better Care (ABC) pathway, the advantages of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for Asians, the considerations of use of NOACs for Asian patients with AF with single 1 stroke risk factor beyond gender, the role of lifestyle factors on stroke risk, the use of oral anticoagulants during the "coronavirus disease 2019" (COVID-19) pandemic, etc. We fully realize that there are gaps, unaddressed questions, and many areas of uncertainty and debate in the current knowledge of AF, and the physician's decision remains the most important factor in the management of AF.

Difficult issues in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a neurologist's point of view

The article evaluates recent perspectives about the role of oral anticoagulants in the secondary prevention of cardioembolic stroke. The timing of prescribing drugs for ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack is discussed in accordance with current clinical guidelines and the results of clinical trials. The issues of prescribing oral anticoagulants in some problematic situations, such as the elderly and senile age, reperfusion therapy, presence of hemorrhagic transformation, combined atherosclerosis of major head and neck arteries, cerebral microangiopathy, history of intracerebral hemorrhage, cryptogenic stroke, and low patient compliance are considered. Finally, an anticoagulant therapy algorithm in the acute period of cardioembolic stroke is presented.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in AF patients ≥ 85 years

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence and its risk of stroke rise with ageing. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of NOAC and warfarin in AF patients aged ≥ 85 years.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study using Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 15,361 patients aged ≥ 85 years with AF on oral anticoagulants were identified. The end points included ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, all-cause mortality and composite adverse events (ICH or major bleeding or all-cause mortality). Clinical outcomes were compared between each NOAC and warfarin after propensity matching.

RESULTS

Before propensity matching, patients taking warfarin were older, more female with more comorbidities than NOACs users. After propensity matching, baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between matched subjects receiving warfarin and each NOAC. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of ICH (hazard ratio [HR] 0.496), mortality (HR 0.558) and adverse events (HR 0.628), while rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of ischaemic stroke (HR 0.781), ICH (HR 0.453), mortality (HR 0.558) and adverse events (HR 0.636). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of mortality (HR 0.488) and adverse events (HR 0.557) compared to warfarin. (all P < .05).

CONCLUSION

For the efficacy, NOACs were associated with a comparable or lower risk of ischaemic stroke compared to warfarin. For adverse events, NOACs were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and composite adverse events. In the elderly AF population, NOACs could be a more favourable choice for stroke prevention.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in atrial fibrillation patients with previous stroke or intracranial hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Several observational studies have compared the effectiveness and safety outcomes between nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of either stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) or intracranial hemorrhage. Therefore, our current meta-analysis aimed to address this issue. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were systematically searched until December 2020 for all relevant observational studies. We applied a random-effects model to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for this meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies were included. Among patients with a history of stroke/TIA, the use of NOACs versus VKAs was associated with decreased risks of stroke (HR, 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97), systemic embolism (HR, 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.87), all-cause death (HR, 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94), major bleeding (HR, 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77). Among patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage, the use of NOACs versus VKAs was associated with reduced risks of stroke (HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.95), all-cause death (HR, 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94), and intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.84). Compared with VKAs, the use of NOACs exhibited superior efficacy and safety outcomes in AF patients with previous stroke/TIA, and the use of NOACs was associated with reduced risks of stroke, all-cause death, and intracranial hemorrhage in patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage.

Pitfalls in the diagnosis of subdural hemorrhage - Mimics and uncommon causes

PURPOSE

Subdural hemorrhage (SDH), the accumulation of blood between the dura and arachnoid mater, is one of the most commonly encountered traumatic findings in emergency radiology setting. The purpose of this essay is to review the pitfalls in the diagnosis of SDH including a) mimics on CT imaging and b) etiology other than accidental trauma. We describe several entities that closely mimic SDH on non-contrast CT scans. A knowledge of these mimics is essential in the emergency setting since overdiagnosis of SDH can lead to unnecessary hospital admissions, potentially invasive procedures, or even delay in necessary treatment. The mimics of SDH on non-contrast head CT include: PATHOLOGIC ENTITIES IATROGENIC MIMICS ANATOMIC/PHYSIOLOGIC MIMICS ARTIFACTUAL MIMICSWe also briefly review non-accidental and non-traumatic causes of SDH. Although, the most common cause of SDH is accidental trauma, other routinely encountered causes of SDH include coagulopathy, non-accidental trauma, cranial surgery, vascular malformations etc. CONCLUSION: Clinicians dealing with SDH in the emergency setting should consider SDH mimics and less common etiologies of SDH in order to facilitate appropriate patient management.

Patients with perceived high-bleeding risk and computerized decision support for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: an AF-ALERT substudy : Piazza: outcomes of high-bleeding risk AF patients

A perceived increased risk of bleeding is one of the most frequent reasons for withholding anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). We previously conducted a randomized controlled trial of alert-based computerized decision support to increase prescription of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with AF. To determine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of those patients whose inpatient health care providers received a computer alert, we analyzed all 248 patients in the alert group. Patients for whom providers elected to omit anticoagulation and provided a rationale of a perceived high risk of bleeding were compared with those who were not designated as high-risk. Perceived high risk of bleeding was the most common reason (77%) for omitting anticoagulation. Median HAS-BLED scores were similar in these patients compared with those who were not deemed to have an increased bleeding risk (3 vs. 3, p = 0.44). Despite being categorized as too high-risk for bleeding to receive antithrombotic therapy at the time of the alert, nearly 12% of these patients were ultimately prescribed anticoagulation by 90 days. The frequency of major and clinically-relevant non-major bleeding was similar between the groups. The frequency of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolic event was similar in both groups (10.2% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.59). In conclusion, a perceived high risk of bleeding was the most common reason for omission of anticoagulation in patients with AF after a computerized alert. Perceived high risk of bleeding was not reflected in a higher HAS-BLED score.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02339493 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02339493 In a randomized controlled trial of computerized decision support to increase prescription of antithrombotic therapy in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), a perceived high risk of bleeding was the most common reason (77%) for omitting antithrombotic therapy after an on-screen alert. Median HAS-BLED scores were similar in these patients compared with those who were not deemed to have an increased bleeding risk (3 vs. 3, p = 0.44). Despite being categorized as too high-risk for bleeding to receive antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention at the time of the alert, nearly 12% of these patients were ultimately prescribed anticoagulation over the ensuing 90 days.