Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2017
Replacing warfarin with a novel oral anticoagulant: Risk of recurrent bleeding and stroke in patients with warfarin ineligible or failure in patients with atrial fibrillation (The ROAR study).
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Turagam Mohit K, Parikh Valay, Afzal Muhammad R, Gopinathannair Rakesh, Lavu Madhav, Kanmanthareddy Arun, Pillarisetti Jayasree, Reddy Madhu, Atkins Donita, Bommana Sudharani, Jaeger Melissa, Jeffery Courtney, Mohanty Sanghamitra, Santangeli Pasquale, Cheng Jie, Di Biase Luigi, Narasimhan Calambur, Natale Andrea, Lakkireddy Dhanunjaya
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients treated with warfarin for atrial fibrillation (AF) become warfarin ineligible (WI) due to major bleeding events (MBE) or systemic thromboembolism (STE). We report a large multicenter real-world experience of the use of direct oral antagonists (DOACs) in these WI patients.
METHODS: We report the outcomes of 263 WI patients treated with DOACs. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes of STE and MBE with DOACs. Secondary objective was to assess clinical predictors of repeat MBE and STE on DOACs.
RESULTS: Note that 63% (166 of 263) patients had a repeat MBE on DOACs. Repeat MBE was significantly higher in patients with prior gastrointestinal bleeding (74.5% vs. 30%, P < 0.0001). Five percent (12 of 263) developed repeat STE. Higher mean CHA2DS2VASC (6.5 ± 1.7 vs. 3.3 ± 1.6 = 0.001) score was associated with repeat STE. About 34% (57 of 166) of patients had an intervention to manage repeat MBE. LAAO devices were successfully used in 67% (12 of 18) high-risk patients who underwent major interventions to manage MBE.
CONCLUSION: In WI patients rechallenged with DOACs, a significant proportion developed repeat MBE. LAAO devices seem reasonable in those patients who undergo major interventions to manage MBE with cautious and temporary continuation of DOAC.
METHODS: We report the outcomes of 263 WI patients treated with DOACs. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes of STE and MBE with DOACs. Secondary objective was to assess clinical predictors of repeat MBE and STE on DOACs.
RESULTS: Note that 63% (166 of 263) patients had a repeat MBE on DOACs. Repeat MBE was significantly higher in patients with prior gastrointestinal bleeding (74.5% vs. 30%, P < 0.0001). Five percent (12 of 263) developed repeat STE. Higher mean CHA2DS2VASC (6.5 ± 1.7 vs. 3.3 ± 1.6 = 0.001) score was associated with repeat STE. About 34% (57 of 166) of patients had an intervention to manage repeat MBE. LAAO devices were successfully used in 67% (12 of 18) high-risk patients who underwent major interventions to manage MBE.
CONCLUSION: In WI patients rechallenged with DOACs, a significant proportion developed repeat MBE. LAAO devices seem reasonable in those patients who undergo major interventions to manage MBE with cautious and temporary continuation of DOAC.