Patients' Perceptions of Atrial Fibrillation, Stroke Risk, and Oral Anticoagulation Treatment: An International Survey

Nonprocedural bleeding after left atrial appendage closure versus direct oral anticoagulants: A subanalysis of the randomized PRAGUE-17 trial

INTRODUCTION

Observational studies have shown low bleeding rates in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated by left atrial appendage closure (LAAC); however, data from randomized studies are lacking. This study compared bleeding events among patients with AF treated by LAAC and nonvitamin K anticoagulants (NOAC).

METHODS

The Prague-17 trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial that compared LAAC to NOAC in high-risk AF patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of a cardioembolic event, cardiovascular death, and major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH).

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 402 patients (201 per arm), and the median follow-up was 3.5 (IQR 2.6-4.2) years. Bleeding occurred in 24 patients (29 events) and 32 patients (40 events) in the LAAC and NOAC groups, respectively. Six of the LAAC bleeding events were procedure/device-related. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, LAAC was associated with similar rates of ISTH major or CRNMB (sHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.27, p = 0.28), but with a reduction in nonprocedural major or CRNMB (sHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.97, p = 0.039). This reduction for nonprocedural bleeding with LAAC was mainly driven by a reduced rate of CRNMB (sHR for major bleeding 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.39, p = .30; sHR for CRNMB 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.03, p = 0.059). History of bleeding was a predictor of bleeding during follow-up. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding site in both groups.

CONCLUSION

During the 4-year follow-up, LAAC was associated with less nonprocedural bleeding. The reduction is mainly driven by a decrease in CRNMB.

Factors affecting self-reported bleeding acceptance in acute ischemic stroke survivors on various types of antithrombotic therapy

OBJECTIVES

Prior ischemic cerebrovascular event and younger age have been shown to increase bleeding acceptance among anticoagulated outpatients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to determine factors affecting bleeding acceptance in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) survivors on various types of antithrombotic therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 173 consecutive patients hospitalized for AIS (aged 68.2±11.7 years, 54.9% male), including 54 (31.2%) with AF, who had favorable functional outcome. On discharge, the Bleeding ratio, defined as the declared maximum number of major bleedings that a patient is willing to accept to prevent one major stroke, was evaluated. We assessed the predicted bleeding risk in non-cardioembolic and cardioembolic stroke survivors using S₂TOP-BLEED and HAS-BLED scores, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients with the low Bleeding ratio, defined as 5 (median) or less accepted bleeds (n=92; 53.2%), were older and more likely to receive thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy, with no impact of previous stroke. Prior major bleed (odds ratio [OR] 4.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-23.72), AF with use of oral anticoagulants (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.12-4.93), reperfusion treatment (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.02-3.76), and hospitalization ≤10 days (OR 4.56; 95% CI 1.50-13.87) were associated with the low Bleeding Ratio. Prior use of anticoagulants or aspirin as well as HAS-BLED and S₂TOP-BLEED scores did not affect the bleeding acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower bleeding acceptance declared on discharge by AIS survivors is determined by prior bleeding, anticoagulation in AF, reperfusion treatment, and duration of hospitalization, which might affect medication adherence. The results might help optimize post-discharge management and educational efforts in patients on antithrombotic therapy.

Social and psychological risk factors for decreased adherence among patients with atrial fibrillation

Adherence has a direct impact on reducing the effectiveness of atrial fibrillation therapy and increasing the risk of thromboembolic events. Among the factors involved in the decrease of adherence, the social and psychological characteristics of patients remain insufficiently studied. At the same time, the available publications allow us to conclude that there are markers of the risk of reduced adherence in patients with atrial fibrillation, which include age, cognitive impairment, psychoemotional disorders (including depression and anxiety) and specific behavioral patterns.

Assessment and Mitigation of Bleeding Risk in Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: Executive Summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper

While there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision for initiating and continuing anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static "one-off" assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by aging, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this executive summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with a view to summarizing "best practice" when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, and review established bleeding risk factors and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism, are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Agents before and after Polypectomy

Antithrombotic medications, including antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants, are widely prescribed to prevent thromboembolic disease. There is limited evidence informing gastroenterologists of the management of patients on antithrombotic medications undergoing colonoscopy and polypectomy. A patient's risk of thromboembolism versus postpolypectomy bleeding should be carefully considered, incorporating patient preferences concerning benefits and harms of temporary antithrombotic interruption. We will review the available consensus guidelines, current literature, and strategies to mitigate the risk of bleeding following polypectomy. These will be interpreted in the framework of shared decision-making with the patient to arrive at the safest solution best aligned with the patient's preferences.

Assessment and mitigation of bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A Position Paper from the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society

Whilst there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision to initiate and continue anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both the thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static 'one off' assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by ageing, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this Consensus Document, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with the view to summarizing 'best practice' when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, review established bleeding risk factors, and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1–7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1–7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Managing uncertainty: Physicians’ decision-making for stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation and intracerebral haemorrhage

Background Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) post-intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is an area of clinical equipoise. Little is known about the tools and processes that physicians use to make decisions regarding anticoagulation in this high-risk patient population. Objective To explore physicians’ decision-making process regarding stroke prevention in patients with AF and a recent history of ICH. Method Qualitative study, utilising semi-structured interviews and analysed using Framework analysis. Results Twenty physicians from five European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom) participated. The over-arching theme ‘Managing uncertainty’, addressed the process of making high-risk clinical decisions in the context of little available robust clinical evidence for best practice. Three sub-themes were identified under the umbrella theme: (1) ‘Computing the Risks’, captured the challenge of balancing the risks of ischaemic stroke with the risk of recurrent ICH in a complex patient population; (2) ‘Patient Factors’ highlighted the influence that patients’ beliefs and previous experience of stroke had on physicians’ decisions; and (3) ‘Making a Decision’ explored the process of reaching a final decision regarding initiation of OAC therapy or not. Conclusion Physicians described the process of deciding on stroke prevention in patients with AF post-ICH as ‘challenging’ due to considerable ‘clinical equipoise’. Key factors that affected decision-making was patient comorbidities, functional status, and patient willingness to engage with oral anticoagulation therapy. Shared decision-making was believed to be beneficial, but physicians believed that the ultimate responsibility to decide on stroke prevention lay with the clinician.

Optimizing adherence and persistence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke, which can be prevented by the use of oral anticoagulation. Although non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have become the first choice for stroke prevention in the majority of patients with non-valvular AF, adherence and persistence to these medications remain suboptimal, which may translate into poor health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Factors influencing adherence and persistence have been suggested to be patient-related, physician-related, and healthcare system-related. In this review, we discuss factors influencing patient adherence and persistence to NOACs and possible problem solving strategies, especially involving an integrated care management, aiming for the improvement in patient outcomes and treatment satisfaction.

Nurse-led vs. usual-care for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Nurse-led integrated care is expected to improve outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation compared with usual-care provided by a medical specialist.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We randomized 1375 patients with atrial fibrillation (64 ± 10 years, 44% women, 57% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2) to receive nurse-led care or usual-care. Nurse-led care was provided by specialized nurses using a decision-support tool, in consultation with the cardiologist. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and cardiovascular hospital admissions. Of 671 nurse-led care patients, 543 (81%) received anticoagulation in full accordance with the guidelines against 559 of 683 (82%) usual-care patients. The cumulative adherence to guidelines-based recommendations was 61% under nurse-led care and 26% under usual-care. Over 37 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 164 of 671 patients (9.7% per year) under nurse-led care and in 192 of 683 patients (11.6% per year) under usual-care [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.04, P = 0.12]. There were 124 vs. 161 hospitalizations for arrhythmia events (7.0% and 9.4% per year), and 14 vs. 22 for heart failure (0.7% and 1.1% per year), respectively. Results were not consistent in a pre-specified subgroup analysis by centre experience, with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.37-to 0.71) in four experienced centres and of 1.24 (95% CI 0.94-1.63) in four less experienced centres (P for interaction <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our trial failed to show that nurse-led care was superior to usual-care. The data suggest that nurse-led care by an experienced team could be clinically beneficial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01740037).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740037).

Current trends in the use of anticoagulant pharmacotherapy in the United Kingdom are changes on the horizon?

INTRODUCTION

Effective stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) reduces the risk of stroke and death among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). For most patients with AF, treatment options include vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). NOACs have been introduced as an alternative to VKAs, and their use has been steadily increasing in the United Kingdom and Europe over a decade. In randomized clinical trials, NOACs had a favorable risk-benefit profile as compared to warfarin. However, there is a concern about their long-term safety in clinical practice, especially in high-risk patients. There have been a number of registries and surveys based on the real-world patients with AF which has been conducted and published, providing data on contemporary AF management.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, the authors discuss current trends in the use of OAC in the United Kingdom and Europe, considering the potential directions for future anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF.

EXPERT OPINION

The increasing prevalence of AF and AF-related comorbidities proves the need for comprehensive prevention and management strategies. The challenge is the optimization of therapy for each patient. However, there are still gaps in optimal stroke prevention, and the mortality rates remain high in patients with AF.

The importance of adherence and persistence in the elderly atrial fibrillation patient

Older adults with atrial fibrillation are at the highest risk of ischaemic stroke yet are the least likely to be prescribed anticoagulant therapy, adhere to this therapy, and maintain long-term persistence with this therapy. The reasons for this under treatment are multifactorial and include patient-driven factors, physician-driven factors, medical system complexities, and current unknowns regarding the biology and natural history of AF. Understanding these challenges to stroke prevention and addressing identified barriers to medication adherence and persistence in this vulnerable age group will improve outcomes related to AF.

Improving the Design of Future PCI Trials for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease continues to be debated in routine clinical practice, despite more than 2 decades of randomized controlled trials. The residual uncertainty arises from particular challenges facing revascularization trials. Which endpoint do doctors care about, and which do patients care about? Which participants should be enrolled? What background medical therapy should we use? When is placebo control relevant? In this paper, we discuss how these questions can be approached and examine the merits and disadvantages of possible options. Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, researchers, regulators, and funders, to ensure the design elements are methodologically valid and clinically meaningful should be an aspirational goal in the development of future trials.