Why the study?
Are direct oral anticoagulants safe and effective for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation?
Are direct oral anticoagulants safe and effective for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation?
This review provides practical recommendations supporting the use of DOACs as the preferred anticoagulant therapy in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation, even in the presence of complex comorbidities.
Supports DOAC preference in elderly AF despite comorbidities; leaves open need for prospective RCTs in frail subgroups.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) in the elderly is a complex condition. It has a direct impact on the underuse of antithrombotic therapy reported in this population. DISCUSSION: All patients aged ≥75 years with AF have an individual yearly risk of stroke >4 %. However, the risk of hemorrhage is also increased. Moreover, in this population it is common the presence of other comorbidities, cognitive disorders, risk of falls and polymedication. This may lead to an underuse of anticoagulant therapy. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as effective as conventional therapy, but with lesser risk of intracranial hemorrhage. The simplification of treatment with these drugs may be an advantage in patients with cognitive impairment. The great majority of elderly patients with AF should receive anticoagulant therapy, unless an unequivocal contraindication. DOACs may be the drugs of choice in many elderly patients with AF. In this manuscript, the available evidence about the management of anticoagulation in elderly patients with AF is reviewed. In addition, specific practical recommendations about different controversial issues (i.e. patients with anemia, thrombocytopenia, risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, renal dysfunction, cognitive impairment, risk of falls, polymedication, frailty, etc.) are provided.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fernández et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: