Key result
NOACs linked to greater net clinical benefit versus SAPT and VKA in lower-risk AF.
Why the study?
The balance of stroke risk reduction and bleeding risk with antithrombotic treatment remains unclear in AF patients with non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc scores 0-1.
Does NOAC improve net clinical benefit compared to SAPT or VKA in Korean AF patients with non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc scores 0-1?
Cohort (n=2,465)
Yes
Does NOAC improve net clinical benefit compared to SAPT or VKA in Korean AF patients with non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc scores 0-1?
Effect estimate: NCB 2.01 (vs SAPT); NCB 2.38 (vs VKA) (95% CI 0.37-4.66 (vs SAPT); 0.56-5.40 (vs VKA))
NOACs provide a significant net clinical benefit over VKA or SAPT in Korean AF patients with low to intermediate stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc 0-1) who have an ABCD score ≥1.
Supports NOAC consideration in Korean AF with ABCD ≥1; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Background The balance of stroke risk reduction and potential bleeding risk associated with antithrombotic treatment (ATT) remains unclear in atrial fibrillation (AF) at non‐gender CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc scores 0–1. A net clinical benefit (NCB) analysis of ATT may guide stroke prevention strategies in AF with non‐gender CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc scores 0–1. Methods This multi‐center cohort study evaluated the clinical outcomes of treatment with a single antiplatelet (SAPT), vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and non‐VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) in non‐gender CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score 0–1 and further stratified by biomarker‐based ABCD score ( A ge [≥60 years], B‐type natriuretic peptide [BNP] or N‐terminal pro‐BNP [≥300 pg/mL], creatinine clearance [<50 mL/min], and dimension of the left atrium [≥45 mm]). The primary outcome was the NCB of ATT, including composite thrombotic events (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and myocardial infarction) and major bleeding events. Results We included 2465 patients (age 56.2 ± 9.5 years; female 27.0%) followed‐up for 4.0 ± 2.8 years, of whom 661 (26.8%) were treated with SAPT; 423 (17.2%) with VKA; and 1040 (42.2%) with NOAC. With detailed risk stratification using the ABCD score, NOAC showed a significant positive NCB compared with the other ATTs (SAPT vs. NOAC, NCB 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–4.66; VKA vs. NOAC, NCB 2.38, 95% CI 0.56–5.40) in ABCD score ≥1. ATT failed to show a positive NCB in patients with truly low stroke risk (ABCD score = 0). Conclusions In the Korean AF cohort at non‐gender CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc scores 0–1, NOAC showed significant NCB advantages over VKA or SAPT with ABCD score ≥1.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jung et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation with non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc scores 0-1 (n=2,465). Non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) vs. Single antiplatelet (SAPT) or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) was evaluated on Net clinical benefit (NCB) including composite thrombotic events and major bleeding events (NCB 2.01 (vs SAPT); NCB 2.38 (vs VKA), 95% CI 0.37-4.66 (vs SAPT); 0.56-5.40 (vs VKA)). In Korean AF patients with low to intermediate stroke risk and ABCD score ≥1, NOACs showed a significant positive net clinical benefit compared to SAPT (NCB 2.01; 95% CI 0.37-4.66) and VKA.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: