Key result
Dabigatran significantly reduced the risk of the composite cardiac and renal outcome compared to warfarin (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.485-0.913; p=0.0115), whereas rivaroxaban and edoxaban did not.
Why the study?
DOACs might carry a lower risk of declining renal function than warfarin, prompting a direct comparison of renal outcomes among rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin in patients with AF.
Do direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran) reduce the risk of declining renal function and cardiovascular death compared to warfarin in adults with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=2,203)
No
Do direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran) reduce the risk of declining renal function and cardiovascular death compared to warfarin in adults with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with atrial fibrillation, dabigatran was associated with better renal and cardiac outcomes compared to warfarin, a benefit not observed with rivaroxaban or edoxaban.
BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation therapy with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is the mainstay for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The DOACs might have a lower risk of declining renal function than warfarin. This study aimed to compare renal outcomes among rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin. METHOD: This cohort study identified 2203 adults with AF who started anticoagulation therapy between 1 July 2013 and 31 December 2020, in a clinical database at a single centre. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was adopted to balance baseline characteristics among four anticoagulants treatment groups. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac and renal outcomes, involving a ≥30% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), renal failure and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, dabigatran was associated with significantly lower risks of a ≥30% decline in eGFR (hazard ratio [HR]: .69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .497-.951, p = .0237), doubling of the serum creatinine level (HR: .49, 95% CI: .259-.927, p = .0282) and the cardiac and renal outcome composite (HR: .67, 95% CI: .485-.913, p = .0115) than warfarin. Rivaroxaban and edoxaban did not show significant protective effects on renal outcomes compared to warfarin. CONCLUSION: In this study, patients treated with dabigatran had significantly reduced risks of declining renal function and composite cardiac and renal events than those treated with warfarin. However, rivaroxaban and edoxaban were not associated with lower risks of any renal outcomes than warfarin. More studies are warranted to investigate and compare the impact of renal function between different DOACs in patients with AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in atrial fibrillation (n=2,203). dabigatran, rivaroxaban, edoxaban vs. warfarin was evaluated on composite of cardiac and renal outcomes, involving a ≥30% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), renal failure and cardiovascular death (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.485-0.913, p=0.0115). Dabigatran significantly reduced the risk of the composite cardiac and renal outcome compared to warfarin (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.485-0.913; p=0.0115), whereas rivaroxaban and edoxaban did not.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: