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 .
Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects . The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known . METHODS We conducted a r and omized , double-blind , double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation ( median follow-up , 2.8 years ) . The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism . Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period . The principal safety end point was major bleeding . RESULTS The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50 % with warfarin ( median time in the therapeutic range , 68.4 % ) , as compared with 1.18 % with high-dose edoxaban ( hazard ratio , 0.79 ; 97.5 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.63 to 0.99 ; P<0.001 for noninferiority ) and 1.61 % with low-dose edoxaban ( hazard ratio , 1.07 ; 97.5 % CI , 0.87 to 1.31 ; P=0.005 for noninferiority ) . In the intention-to-treat analysis , there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin ( hazard ratio , 0.87 ; 97.5 % CI , 0.73 to 1.04 ; P=0.08 ) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin ( hazard ratio , 1.13 ; 97.5 % CI , 0.96 to 1.34 ; P=0.10 ) . The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43 % with warfarin versus 2.75 % with high-dose edoxaban ( hazard ratio , 0.80 ; 95 % CI , 0.71 to 0.91 ; P<0.001 ) and 1.61 % with low-dose edoxaban ( hazard ratio , 0.47 ; 95 % CI , 0.41 to 0.55 ; P<0.001 ) . The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17 % versus 2.74 % ( hazard ratio , 0.86 ; 95 % CI , 0.77 to 0.97 ; P=0.01 ) , and 2.71 % ( hazard ratio , 0.85 ; 95 % CI , 0.76 to 0.96 ; P=0.008 ) , and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point ( a composite of stroke , systemic embolism , or death from cardiovascular causes ) were 4.43 % versus 3.85 % ( hazard ratio , 0.87 ; 95 % CI , 0.78 to 0.96 ; P=0.005 ) , and 4.23 % ( hazard ratio , 0.95 ; 95 % CI , 0.86 to 1.05 ; P=0.32 ) . CONCLUSIONS Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes . ( Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development ; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00781391 . )
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 .