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 .
Outcomes of apixaban vs. warfarin by type and duration of atrial fibrillation: results from the ARISTOTLE trial.
AIMS It is uncertain whether the benefit from apixaban varies by type and duration of atrial fibrillation ( AF ) . METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 18 201 patients with AF [ 2786 ( 15.3 % ) with paroxysmal and 15 412 ( 84.7 % ) with persistent or permanent ] were r and omized to apixaban or warfarin .  In this pre-specified secondary analysis , we compared outcomes and treatment effect of apixaban vs. warfarin by AF type and duration . The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism . The secondary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality . There was a consistent reduction in stroke or systemic embolism ( P for interaction = 0.71 ) , all-cause mortality ( P for interaction = 0.75 ) , and major bleeding ( P for interaction = 0.50 ) with apixaban compared with warfarin for both AF types . Apixaban was superior to warfarin in all studied endpoints , regardless of AF duration at study entry ( P for all interactions > 0.13 ) . The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was significantly higher in patients with persistent or permanent AF than patients with paroxysmal AF ( 1.52 vs. 0.98 % ; P = 0.003 , adjusted P = 0.015 ) . There was also a trend towards higher mortality in patients with persistent or permanent AF ( 3.90 vs. 2.81 % ; P = 0.0002 , adjusted P = 0.066 ) . CONCLUSION The risks of stroke , mortality , and major bleeding were lower with apixaban than warfarin regardless of AF type and duration . Although the risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower in paroxysmal than persistent or permanent AF , apixaban is an attractive alternative to warfarin in patients with AF and at least one other risk factor for stroke , regardless of the type or duration of AF
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 .