PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2026JAMA Network Open1 citationsOpen Access

Continuation vs Switching Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy After Breakthrough Stroke

View Full Paper
LDLucio D’AnnaFGFrancesca GabrieleRORaffaele Ornello

Key Result

Switching anticoagulation therapy was noninferior to continuing the same DOAC for 90-day net clinical benefit after breakthrough stroke (risk difference -0.3 percentage points; 90% CI -2.7 to 2.1).

Key Points

  • To analyze whether continuing the same direct oral anticoagulant therapy is noninferior to switching to a different anticoagulant after an ischemic stroke.
  • Multicenter registry-based cohort study
  • Involved 1006 adult patients with atrial fibrillation and breakthrough ischemic stroke
  • Noninferiority comparison using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)
  • 90-day net clinical benefit: switching (4.9%) vs continuation (5.1%), risk difference -0.3 percentage points (90% CI, -2.7 to 2.1)
  • Absolute differences for ischemic events and bleeding within predefined noninferiority margins
  • No noninferiority demonstrated for all-cause or vascular mortality

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=1,006)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does switching to a different DOAC or vitamin K antagonist improve 90-day net clinical benefit in adult patients with AF and breakthrough ischemic stroke on DOAC therapy compared to continuing the same DOAC?

P
Population
1006 adult patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who experienced a breakthrough ischemic stroke while receiving uninterrupted DOAC therapy and resumed anticoagulation therapy thereafter, median age 80.4, 50.0% female, multinational (9 countries in Europe and North Africa).
I
Intervention
Switched to treatment with a different DOAC or vitamin K antagonist
C
Comparator
Continued therapy with the prestroke DOAC
O
Outcome
90-day net clinical benefit, defined as recurrent ischemic stroke and moderate to severe bleedingcomposite

Switching anticoagulation therapy after a breakthrough ischemic stroke in AF patients on DOACs does not provide additional short-term net clinical benefit compared to continuing the same DOAC.

Main Result

Effect estimate: Risk difference -0.3 percentage points (95% CI -2.7 to 2.1)

Absolute Event Rate: 4.9% vs 5.1%

Abstract

Importance: Management after an ischemic stroke occurring despite direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) varies widely. Switching anticoagulation is common in clinical practice, although evidence supporting this strategy is limited. Objective: To evaluate whether continuation of treatment with the same DOAC was noninferior to switching oral anticoagulant therapy with respect to 90-day clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter registry-based cohort study with an emulated target trial design included consecutive adult patients with AF who experienced a breakthrough ischemic stroke while receiving uninterrupted DOAC therapy and resumed anticoagulation therapy thereafter. Patients were enrolled between February 2020 and February 2025, across 35 stroke centers in 9 countries in Europe and North Africa, with a standardized 90-day follow-up. The dataset was locked on September 1, 2025. A noninferiority comparison of switching vs continuation strategies was performed. Baseline confounding was addressed using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The primary noninferiority margin was an absolute risk difference of 3.0 percentage points in 90-day net clinical benefit. Exposure: The intervention group switched to treatment with a different DOAC or vitamin K antagonist; the comparator group continued therapy with the prestroke DOAC. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day net clinical benefit, defined as recurrent ischemic stroke and moderate to severe bleeding. Secondary outcomes included recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, moderate to severe extracranial bleeding, all-cause mortality, and vascular death. Results: Among 1006 patients included in the analysis (median age, 80.4 IQR, 73.4-85.4 years; 503 female 50.0% and 503 50.0% male), 463 (46.0%) continued the same DOAC therapy and 543 (54.0%) switched therapy. After IPTW adjustment, the 90-day net clinical benefit was 4.9% with switching and 5.1% with continuation, corresponding to a risk difference of -0.3 percentage points (90% CI, -2.7 to 2.1 percentage points), meeting the prespecified noninferiority criterion. For recurrent ischemic events and bleeding outcomes, the absolute differences were within the predefined noninferiority margins. Noninferiority was not demonstrated for all-cause or vascular mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with breakthrough ischemic stroke during DOAC therapy, switching anticoagulation treatment was not associated with clinically meaningful short-term benefit compared with continuation. These findings suggest that switching does not provide additional benefit compared with continuing treatment with the same DOAC. Randomized clinical trials are needed to identify strategies to improve secondary prevention after a breakthrough ischemic stroke.

Expert Takes1 quote

“Our results challenge the empirical practice of switching anticoagulants after a breakthrough stroke. When poor adherence, inappropriate dosing and alternative stroke mechanisms have been ruled out, continuation of the same DOAC may represent a safer and simpler strategy, avoiding the transient l...”

ACC Journal ScanView source
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

D’Anna et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation with breakthrough ischemic stroke (n=1,006). Switching to a different DOAC or vitamin K antagonist vs. Continuation of prestroke DOAC therapy was evaluated on 90-day net clinical benefit (recurrent ischemic stroke and moderate to severe bleeding) (Risk difference -0.3 percentage points, 95% CI -2.7 to 2.1). Switching anticoagulation therapy was noninferior to continuing the same DOAC for 90-day net clinical benefit after breakthrough stroke (risk difference -0.3 percentage points; 90% CI -2.7 to 2.1).

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f4435b967e944ac5566966https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.9584
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper