Dabigatran was significantly associated with a higher risk of MI or ACS compared to control agents (1.19% vs 0.79%; OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.71; P=0.03).
Meta-Analysis (n=30,514)
Does dabigatran increase the risk of myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome compared to warfarin, enoxaparin, or placebo in patients requiring anticoagulation?
In a meta-analysis of 7 RCTs, dabigatran was associated with a significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome compared to control therapies.
Effect estimate: OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.03-1.71)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.19% vs 0.79%
p-value: p=.03
BACKGROUND: The original RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulant Therapy) trial suggested a small increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) with the use of dabigatran etexilate vs warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. We systematically evaluated the risk of MI or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with the use of dabigatran. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of dabigatran that reported on MI or ACS as secondary outcomes. The fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) test was used to evaluate the effect of dabigatran on MI or ACS. We expressed the associations as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs. RESULTS: Seven trials were selected (N = 30,514), including 2 studies of stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation, 1 in acute venous thromboembolism, 1 in ACS, and 3 of short-term prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis. Control arms included warfarin, enoxaparin, or placebo administration. Dabigatran was significantly associated with a higher risk of MI or ACS than that seen with agents used in the control group (dabigatran, 237 of 20,000 1.19% vs control, 83 of 10,514 0.79%; OR(M-H), 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.71; P = .03). The risk of MI or ACS was similar when using revised RE-LY trial results (OR(M-H), 1.27; 95% CI, 1.00-1.61; P = .05) or after exclusion of short-term trials (OR(M-H), 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.72; P = .03). Risks were not heterogeneous for all analyses (I(2) = 0%; P ≥ .30) and were consistent using different methods and measures of association. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran is associated with an increased risk of MI or ACS in a broad spectrum of patients when tested against different controls. Clinicians should consider the potential of these serious harmful cardiovascular effects with use of dabigatran.
Ken Uchino (Tue,) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation, acute venous thromboembolism, acute coronary syndrome, or deep venous thrombosis (n=30,514). Dabigatran vs. Warfarin, enoxaparin, or placebo was evaluated on Myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.71, p=.03). Dabigatran was significantly associated with a higher risk of MI or ACS compared to control agents (1.19% vs 0.79%; OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.71; P=0.03).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: