DOACs are the recommended oral anticoagulant for vital older patients with atrial fibrillation, demonstrating at least similar effectiveness and safety compared to VKAs in frail and high-risk subgroups.
Do DOACs provide similar or improved effectiveness and safety compared to VKAs in older and frail patients with atrial fibrillation?
DOACs are recommended for older patients with AF, and despite limited data in frail subsets, current evidence supports their continued use over VKAs in these populations.
INTRODUCTION: Both the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its subsequent use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are rapidly increasing in patients of older age. In the absence of contra-indications, guidelines advocate anticoagulation based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score for all AF patients aged 75 and above. However, some practitioners are hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants to older and frail patients due to perceived elevated bleeding risks. This review delves into the comparative treatment outcomes of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in older patients with AF, particularly focusing on those of advanced age, frailty, increased risk of falling, chronic kidney disease (CKD), or with a history of major bleeding. Additionally, considerations on the use of off-label DOAC doses, the role of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure and future developments in factor XIa-inhibitors will be discussed. RESULTS: While strong evidence supports the use of DOACs in the vital older patients with nonvalvular AF, it remains scant in frail patient groups. There is some evidence from non-randomized studies suggesting that the effect of DOACs compared with VKAs is consistent between frail and nonfrail patients. However, recent findings from a single randomized trial showed increased bleeding risks but comparable thromboembolic outcomes in frail individuals switching from VKAs to DOACs. In patients with an increased risk of falling, data suggest no relevant interaction of increased risk of falling on the effectiveness and safety of DOACs compared with warfarin. Resuming oral anticoagulants in patients with Af after major bleeding seems to be beneficial. Off-label low-dose DOAC is often prescribed to patients who were underrepresented in larger randomized trails because of an elevated risk of bleeding or overexposure to DOACs, but its effect on clinical outcomes remains uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs are the recommended oral anticoagulant for vital older patients with AF. The scarcity of data backing DOAC use in frail individuals, those with renal impairments, or significant bleeding history underscores the necessity for further investigation. However, existing evidence suggests at least similar effectiveness and safety and potential benefits for DOACs in these patient subsets. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest these patients should be treated differently than the established guidelines regarding anticoagulation.
Spruit et al. (Wed,) conducted a review in Atrial Fibrillation. Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) was evaluated. DOACs are the recommended oral anticoagulant for vital older patients with atrial fibrillation, demonstrating at least similar effectiveness and safety compared to VKAs in frail and high-risk subgroups.