Key result
Nonadherence to NOACs was associated with significantly higher rates of stroke (5.6% vs 2.5%, P<.001) and major bleeding (6.1% vs 3.7%, P=.004) compared to adherence.
Why the study?
Does nonadherence to NOACs increase the risk of stroke and bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Population
2738 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation using NOACs for more than 3 months, mean age 70, 59%…
Comparison
Nonadherence to NOAC therapy vs Adherence to NOAC therapy
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
May warrant adherence monitoring in NOAC users; hypothesis-generating without causal evidence from cross-sectional data.
Cross-Sectional (n=2,738)
Yes
Does nonadherence to NOACs increase the risk of stroke and bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.6% vs 2.5%
p-value: p=<.001
Self-reported nonadherence to NOACs is highly prevalent (51%) in Turkey and is associated with increased risks of both stroke and bleeding in patients with NVAF.
Emren et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=2,738). Nonadherence to NOACs vs. Adherence to NOACs was evaluated on Stroke (p=<.001). Nonadherence to NOACs was associated with significantly higher rates of stroke (5.6% vs 2.5%, P<.001) and major bleeding (6.1% vs 3.7%, P=.004) compared to adherence.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: