Association of Alternative Anticoagulation Strategies and Outcomes in Patients With Ischemic Stroke While Taking a Direct Oral Anticoagulant

Changing or Retaining Direct Oral Anticoagulant After Ischemic Stroke Despite Direct Oral Anticoagulant Treatment

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation who experience ischemic stroke (IS) despite direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy remain inconclusive. This study compared outcomes for patients with DOAC treatment failure who changed or retained their prestroke DOAC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the National Health Insurance Research Database from 2012 to 2020. Patients with atrial fibrillation who experienced IS during DOAC therapy were assigned to either (1) the DOAC-change group: changing prestroke DOAC or (2) the DOAC-retain group: retaining prestroke DOAC. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent IS and transient ischemic attack. The secondary outcomes included intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, systemic thromboembolism, and all-cause death. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance the baseline characteristics between the DOAC-change and DOAC-retain groups. The Cox proportional hazards model compared the risk of outcomes between the 2 groups. In total, 1979 patients were enrolled (609 DOAC-change patients and 1370 DOAC-retain patients). The incidence rates of recurrent IS or transient ischemic attack were 7.20 and 6.56 per 100 person-years in the DOAC-change and DOAC-retain groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87-1.30]). A nonsignificantly higher incidence rate of intracranial hemorrhage was observed in the DOAC-change group compared with the DOAC-retain group (0.75 versus 0.53 per 100-person-years; HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.78-2.83]). The systemic thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death rates were comparable between the DOAC-change and DOAC-retain groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing prestroke DOAC does not reduce the risk of recurrent cerebral ischemia in patients with atrial fibrillation who develop IS during DOAC therapy. However, future studies should continue to observe the potential trends of increased intracranial hemorrhage risk.

Causal associations of COVID-19 on neurosurgical diseases risk: a Mendelian randomization study

Many researchers have explored the potential association between one neurosurgical disease and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but few systematically analyzed the association and causality between COVID-19 and various neurosurgical diseases. A Mendelian randomization analysis was conducted to evaluate the causal association between COVID-19 (including critically ill COVID-19, hospitalized COVID-19, and respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection) and 30 neurosurgical diseases within European populations. The consequences of inverse variance weighted models suggest that genetic susceptibility of critically ill COVID-19 may increase the risk of cerebral infarction (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02; p-value = 0.006), genetic susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the risk of stroke (OR = 1.02; p-value = 0.047), and conversely, genetic susceptibility of hospitalized COVID-19 may reduce the risk of pituitary adenoma and craniopharyngioma (OR = 0.90; p-value = 0.032). In addition, evidences revealed potential associations between genetic susceptibility of COVID-19 and spinal stenosis (OR = 1.03; p-value = 0.028), diffuse brain injury (OR = 1.21; p-value = 0.040) and focal brain injury (OR = 1.12; p-value = 0.040). By testing for heterogeneity and pleiotropy, the above causal conclusions are robust. In summary, our analysis shows that COVID-19 has an independent and powerful causal influence on multiple neurosurgical disorders.

Atrial fibrillation: stroke prevention

Stroke prevention is central to the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) which has moved towards a more holistic or integrative care approach. The published evidence suggests that management of AF patients following such a holistic approach based on the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway is associated with a lower risk of stroke and adverse events. Risk assessment, re-assessment and use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are important for stroke prevention in AF. The stroke and bleeding risks of AF patients are not static and should be re-assessed regularly. Bleeding risk assessment is to address and mitigate modifiable bleeding risk factors, and to identify high bleeding risk patients for early review and follow-up. Well-controlled comorbidities and healthy lifestyles also play an important role to achieve a better clinical outcome. Digital health solutions are increasingly relevant in the diagnosis and management of patients with AF, with the potential to improve stroke prevention. In this review, we provide an update on stroke prevention in AF, including importance of holistic management, risk assessment/re-assessment, and stroke prevention for special AF populations. Evidence-based and structured management of AF patients would reduce the risk of stroke and other adverse events.

Atrial fibrillation and stroke: State-of-the-art and future directions

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The two conditions shared common co-morbidities and risk factors. AF-related strokes are associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher mortality compared to non-AF-related. Early detection of AF is vital for prevention. While various scores have been developed to predict AF in such a high-risk group, they are yet to incorporated into clinical guidelines. Novel markers and predictors of AF including coronary and intracranial arterial calcification have also been studied. There are also ongoing debates on the management of acute stroke in patients with AF, and those who experienced breakthrough stroke while on oral anticoagulants. We provided an overview of the complex interplay between AF and stroke, as well as the treatment and secondary prevention of stroke in AF. We also comprehensively discussed the current evidence and the ongoing conundrums, and highlighted the future directions on the topic.

Comparing Efficacy and Safety Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants or Warfarin After Direct Oral Anticoagulant Failure

BACKGROUND

An increased risk of recurrent stroke is noted in patients with atrial fibrillation despite direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use. We investigated the efficacy and safety of treatment with each of 4 different DOACs or warfarin after DOAC failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with atrial fibrillation with ischemic stroke despite DOAC treatment between January 2002 and December 2016. The different outcomes of patients with DOAC failure were compared, including recurrent ischemic stroke, major cardiovascular events, intracranial hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage, mortality, and net composite outcomes according to switching to different DOACs or vitamin K antagonist after index ischemic stroke. We identified 3759 patients with DOAC failure. A total of 84 patients experienced recurrent ischemic stroke after switching to different oral anticoagulants, with a total follow-up time of 14 years. Using the vitamin K antagonist group as a reference, switching to any of the 4 DOACs was associated with a 69% to 77% reduced risk of major cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.16-0.39] for apixaban, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.14-0.37] for dabigatran, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.09-0.60] for edoxaban, and 0.31 [95% CI, 0.21-0.45] for rivaroxaban), and a 69% to 83% reduced risk of net composite outcomes (aHR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.18-0.35] for apixaban, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.11-0.25] for dabigatran, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.17-0.56] for edoxaban, and 0.31 [95% CI, 0.23-0.41] for rivaroxaban).

CONCLUSIONS

In Asian patients with DOAC failure, continuing DOACs after index stroke was associated with fewer undesirable outcomes than switching to a vitamin K antagonist. Alternative pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies warrant investigation.

Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Stroke despite Oral Anticoagulation

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) experiencing ischemic stroke despite oral anticoagulation (OAC), i.e., breakthrough strokes, are not uncommon, and represent an important clinical subgroup in view of the consistently high risk of stroke recurrence and mortality. The understanding of the heterogenous potential mechanism underlying OAC failure is essential in order to implement specific therapeutic measures aimed at reducing the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. However, due to the incomplete comprehension of this phenomenon and the limited available data, secondary stroke prevention in such high-risk patients represents a clinical dilemma. There are several available strategies to prevent ischemic stroke recurrence in AF patients with breakthrough stroke in the absence of competing causes unrelated to AF, and these include continuation or change in the type of OAC, addition of antiplatelet therapy, left atrial appendage closure, or any combination of the above options. However, due to the limited available data, the latest guidelines do not provide any specific recommendations about which of the above strategies may be preferred. This review describes the incidence, the clinical impact and the potential mechanisms underlying OAC failure in AF patients. Furthermore, the evidence supporting each of the above therapeutic options for secondary stroke prevention and the potential future directions will be discussed.