Warfarin Versus Thrombin Inhibitor ( Dabigatran ) The RE-LY trial ( 9 , 18 ) showed that treatment with dabigatran , 150 mg , is superior to warfarin in reducing the incidence of the composite outcome of stroke or systemic embolism .
No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 therapies with regard to major bleeding , myocardial infa rct ion , or
Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is characterized by uncoordinated atrial activation with consequent deterioration of mechanical function ( 1 ) .
It is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia , and according to estimates , 12.1 million Americans will have AF by 2050 ( 2 ) .
Patients with AF have increased risk for embolic stroke , heart failure , and cognitive impairment ; reduced quality of life ; and higher overall mortality ( 35 ) .
Strokes related to AF have been characterized as more severe ( 6 , 7 ) and translate to a substantial economic burden , costing Medicare approximately $ 8 billion annually ( 8) .
Antithrombotic therapies are the mainstays for preventing thromboembolic events in patients with AF .
Oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists ( VKAs ) has long been the gold st and ard therapy for stroke prevention in these patients .
However , the challenges of monitoring VKA therapy and the many associated food and drug interactions have fueled the development of novel therapeutic options .
Currently , 4 direct-acting oral anticoagulants ( DOACs ) are approved for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF : the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban , rivaroxaban , and edoxaban .
In addition , procedural interventions , such as left atrial appendage ( LAA ) occlusion devices , are an alternative treatment for patients who are at high risk for bleeding while receiving anticoagulation therapy .
This systematic review up date s previous review s ( 13 ) and aims to compare the effectiveness of the available medical and procedural therapies in preventing thromboembolic events and bleeding complications in patients with AF .
Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND The use of warfarin reduces the rate of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but requires frequent monitoring and dose adjustment . Rivaroxaban , an oral factor Xa inhibitor , may provide more consistent and predictable anticoagulation than warfarin . METHODS In a double-blind trial , we r and omly assigned 14,264 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke to receive either rivaroxaban ( at a daily dose of 20 mg ) or dose-adjusted warfarin . The per- protocol , as-treated primary analysis was design ed to determine whether rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the primary end point of stroke or systemic embolism . RESULTS In the primary analysis , the primary end point occurred in 188 patients in the rivaroxaban group ( 1.7 % per year ) and in 241 in the warfarin group ( 2.2 % per year ) ( hazard ratio in the rivaroxaban group , 0.79 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.66 to 0.96 ; P<0.001 for noninferiority ) . In the intention-to-treat analysis , the primary end point occurred in 269 patients in the rivaroxaban group ( 2.1 % per year ) and in 306 patients in the warfarin group ( 2.4 % per year ) ( hazard ratio , 0.88 ; 95 % CI , 0.74 to 1.03 ; P<0.001 for noninferiority ; P=0.12 for superiority ) . Major and nonmajor clinical ly relevant bleeding occurred in 1475 patients in the rivaroxaban group ( 14.9 % per year ) and in 1449 in the warfarin group ( 14.5 % per year ) ( hazard ratio , 1.03 ; 95 % CI , 0.96 to 1.11 ; P=0.44 ) , with significant reductions in intracranial hemorrhage ( 0.5 % vs. 0.7 % , P=0.02 ) and fatal bleeding ( 0.2 % vs. 0.5 % , P=0.003 ) in the rivaroxaban group . CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation , rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism . There was no significant between-group difference in the risk of major bleeding , although intracranial and fatal bleeding occurred less frequently in the rivaroxaban group . ( Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer ; ROCKET AF Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00403767 . )
Warfarin Versus Thrombin Inhibitor ( Dabigatran ) The RE-LY trial ( 9 , 18 ) showed that treatment with dabigatran , 150 mg , is superior to warfarin in reducing the incidence of the composite outcome of stroke or systemic embolism .
No statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 therapies with regard to major bleeding , myocardial infa rct ion , or
Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is characterized by uncoordinated atrial activation with consequent deterioration of mechanical function ( 1 ) .
It is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia , and according to estimates , 12.1 million Americans will have AF by 2050 ( 2 ) .
Patients with AF have increased risk for embolic stroke , heart failure , and cognitive impairment ; reduced quality of life ; and higher overall mortality ( 35 ) .
Strokes related to AF have been characterized as more severe ( 6 , 7 ) and translate to a substantial economic burden , costing Medicare approximately $ 8 billion annually ( 8) .
Antithrombotic therapies are the mainstays for preventing thromboembolic events in patients with AF .
Oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists ( VKAs ) has long been the gold st and ard therapy for stroke prevention in these patients .
However , the challenges of monitoring VKA therapy and the many associated food and drug interactions have fueled the development of novel therapeutic options .
Currently , 4 direct-acting oral anticoagulants ( DOACs ) are approved for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF : the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban , rivaroxaban , and edoxaban .
In addition , procedural interventions , such as left atrial appendage ( LAA ) occlusion devices , are an alternative treatment for patients who are at high risk for bleeding while receiving anticoagulation therapy .
This systematic review up date s previous review s ( 13 ) and aims to compare the effectiveness of the available medical and procedural therapies in preventing thromboembolic events and bleeding complications in patients with AF .