Why the study?
Cockcroft-Gault is recommended for direct oral anticoagulant dose reduction, but nephrology guidelines recommend MDRD and CKD-EPI as more accurate glomerular filtration rate estimates.
Does the use of MDRD or CKD-EPI formulae compared to Cockcroft-Gault for renal function estimation alter dosing indications and impact thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does the use of MDRD or CKD-EPI formulae compared to Cockcroft-Gault for renal function estimation alter dosing indications and impact thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation?
Using MDRD or CKD-EPI formulae instead of Cockcroft-Gault for direct oral anticoagulant dosing in atrial fibrillation patients with chronic kidney disease leads to reclassification in up to a quarter of patients and is associated with increased thromboembolic events.
Discordant CKD-EPI dosing was associated with excess thromboembolic events; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background: The Cockcroft-Gault formula is recommended to determine a renal indication for dose reduction of dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. Nephrology guidelines now recommend the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formulae as more accurate estimates of glomerular filtration rate. Methods: We analyzed anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation who were enrolled in the Prevention of Thromboembolic Events – European Registry in Atrial Fibrillation (PREFER in AF). The proportion of patients with dissimilar renal dosing indications was assessed when applying Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, or CKD-EPI. Thromboembolic and major bleeding events at 1 year were compared in patients in whom Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI provided concordant or discordant results around a threshold of 50 mL/minute. Results: Out of 1288 patients with atrial fibrillation with chronic kidney disease in whom Cockcroft-Gault suggested a dose reduction of dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban (creatinine clearance ≤50 mL/minutes), 19% and 16% were reclassified to the respective higher doses, and 24% and 23% to the respective lower doses by applying the MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae, respectively. In patients potentially receiving a different dose of dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban when using CKD-EPI, we observed an excess of thromboembolic events (4.1% versus 0.8%; odds ratio, 5.5 [95% CI, 1.5–20.8]; P =0.01). Major bleeding rates were nonsignificantly different in the discordance versus concordance group (5.7% versus 2.7%; odds ratio, 2.2 [95% CI, 0.9–5.6]; P =0.09). Conclusions: The MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae suggest a different dosing in up to a quarter of anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. This seems to impact hard outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rohla et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: