Key result
Oral anticoagulation did not reduce the composite risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death (HR 1.00), but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding (HR 1.70).
Why the study?
Does oral anticoagulation reduce the composite risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death in patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 but CHADS2 score <2?
Cohort (n=5,851)
Does oral anticoagulation reduce the composite risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death in patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 but CHADS2 score <2?
Hazard Ratio: 1 (95% CI 0.84–1.2)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.4% vs 6.9%
In Medicare beneficiaries with atrial fibrillation newly recommended for anticoagulation by 2014 guidelines, oral anticoagulation did not reduce thromboembolic events but significantly increased bleeding risk.
Background In March 2014, the American Heart Association updated their guidelines for the management of oral anticoagulation ( OAC ) in atrial fibrillation, recommending OAC for all patients with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c ≥2. Previously, only patients with CHADS 2 ≥2 were recommended for anticoagulation. This study compared effectiveness and safety outcomes of OAC among patients who would receive OAC using the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines. Methods and Results Using claims data from a 5% sample of 2013–2014 Medicare beneficiaries, we identified patients with initially diagnosed atrial fibrillation between 2013 and 2014 and selected those who would receive OAC under the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines (those with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c score ≥2 or CHADS 2 score <2). Patients were categorized according to their use of OAC after first atrial fibrillation diagnosis (2937 users and 2914 nonusers). Primary outcomes included the composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism and death, and any bleeding event. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to compare the risk of primary outcomes between the 2 groups, while controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. There was no difference in the combined risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death between the treatment groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.20). The risk of bleeding was higher for patients receiving OAC than for patients not receiving OAC (hazard ratio, 1.70, 95% confidence interval, 1.46–1.97). Conclusions The benefit of OAC is not well defined in this patient population, and new studies that minimize residual confounding are needed to fully understand the risk/benefit of OAC in patients with atrial fibrillation and low to moderate stroke risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gray et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Atrial Fibrillation with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2 and CHADS2 <2 (n=5,851). Oral anticoagulation vs. No oral anticoagulation was evaluated on Composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84-1.20). Oral anticoagulation did not reduce the composite risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death (HR 1.00), but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding (HR 1.70).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: