Key result
In patients ≥80 years with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic valve, DOACs had a similar risk of net clinical outcomes compared to warfarin (adjusted HR 1.26; 95% CI 0.71-2.24; P=0.44).
Why the study?
Data related to elderly patients aged ≥80 years with bioprosthetic valve replacement and AF receiving oral anticoagulation are limited.
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) provide similar efficacy and safety compared to warfarin in elderly patients (≥80 years) with a bioprosthetic valve and atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=752)
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) provide similar efficacy and safety compared to warfarin in elderly patients (≥80 years) with a bioprosthetic valve and atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 1.26 (95% CI 0.71–2.24)
p-value: p=0.44
DOACs demonstrate similar efficacy and safety to warfarin in elderly patients (aged ≥80 years) with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic valve.
Supports comparable net outcomes with DOACs versus warfarin in octogenarians with BPV-AF; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have a bioprosthetic valve (BPV). However, the data related to elderly patients (aged ≥80 years) with BPV replacement and AF are limited. METHODS: This post-hoc subgroup analysis of a BPV-AF Registry enrolled 752 patients with BPV replacement and AF. The primary net outcome was a composite of cardiac death, stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Among 752 patients, 429 (57%) patients were ≥ 80 and 323 (43%) were < 80 years old. The higher risk in patients aged ≥80 than <80 years was significant for the net outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-3.17; P = 0.001). After adjustment for confounders, there was no statistically significant difference between warfarin (reference) and DOAC users in the risk of net outcomes (adjusted HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.71-2.24; P = 0.44), stroke and systemic embolism (adjusted HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.48-8.38; P = 0.34), and major bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.11-4.98; P = 0.75) in patients aged ≥80 years old as well as those aged <80 years. Among 489 warfarin users, the cumulative incidence of net outcomes tended to be higher in patients aged ≥80 than <80 years (12.2% vs. 5.7% at 1 year, log-rank P = 0.002). Among 263 DOAC users, however, it was similar between patients aged ≥80 and < 80 years. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that DOAC showed similar efficacy and safety compared with warfarin even in elderly patients aged ≥80 years with BPV replacement and AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amano et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation with a bioprosthetic valve (n=752). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Composite of cardiac death, stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and cardiovascular events (adjusted HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.71-2.24, p=0.44). In patients ≥80 years with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic valve, DOACs had a similar risk of net clinical outcomes compared to warfarin (adjusted HR 1.26; 95% CI 0.71-2.24; P=0.44).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: