BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) accounts for a majority of long-term morbidity and mortality associated with bleeding while on warfarin. Both ICH and warfarin-related ICH appear to have a genetic component. Furthermore, advanced neuroimaging using MRI can now identify individuals at increased risk of ICH. We explore whether screening strategies that include genetic profiling and neuroimaging might improve the safety of chronic anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation by identifying individuals from whom warfarin should be withheld. METHODS: We used a Markov state transition decision model. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Data sources included the English language literature using MEDLINE searches and bibliographies from selected articles along with empirical data from our institutions. The base case was a 69-year-old man with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: For patients at average risk for thromboembolic events and known to possess a hypothetical genetic profile increasing risk for warfarin ICH, anticoagulation remains the preferred strategy until the relative hazard of ICH exceeds 23.8. Genetic profiling would be favored for patients at low risk of thromboembolism (1.5% per year) if the hypothetical gene variant(s) conferred a relative risk of ICH >4.1. Screening strategies in which patients underwent genotyping and MRI before anticoagulation did not improve aggregate patient outcomes unless the predictive power of MRI exceeded current best guess estimates and patients were at low to moderate risk of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Currently identified genetic markers of bleeding risk do not confer a risk of ICH sufficiently high to warrant routine genetic testing for patients at average risk of thromboembolism. Even if patients undergo screening with MRI as well as genotyping, currently available data on the role of MRI on risk of ICH and warfarin ICH do not support use of these tests for withholding anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) accounts for a majority of long-term morbidity and mortality associated with bleeding while on warfarin. Both ICH and warfarin-related ICH appear to have a genetic component. Furthermore, advanced neuroimaging using MRI can now identify individuals at increased risk of ICH. We explore whether screening strategies that include genetic profiling and neuroimaging might improve the safety of chronic anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation by identifying individuals from whom warfarin should be withheld. METHODS: We used a Markov state transition decision model. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Data sources included the English language literature using MEDLINE searches and bibliographies from selected articles along with empirical data from our institutions. The base case was a 69-year-old man with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: For patients at average risk for thromboembolic events and known to possess a hypothetical genetic profile increasing risk for warfarinICH, anticoagulation remains the preferred strategy until the relative hazard of ICH exceeds 23.8. Genetic profiling would be favored for patients at low risk of thromboembolism (1.5% per year) if the hypothetical gene variant(s) conferred a relative risk of ICH >4.1. Screening strategies in which patients underwent genotyping and MRI before anticoagulation did not improve aggregate patient outcomes unless the predictive power of MRI exceeded current best guess estimates and patients were at low to moderate risk of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Currently identified genetic markers of bleeding risk do not confer a risk of ICH sufficiently high to warrant routine genetic testing for patients at average risk of thromboembolism. Even if patients undergo screening with MRI as well as genotyping, currently available data on the role of MRI on risk of ICH and warfarinICH do not support use of these tests for withholding anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Authors: Maarten G Lansberg; Martin J O'Donnell; Pooja Khatri; Eddy S Lang; Mai N Nguyen-Huynh; Neil E Schwartz; Frank A Sonnenberg; Sam Schulman; Per Olav Vandvik; Frederick A Spencer; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Gordon H Guyatt; Elie A Akl Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Neil F Rosenberg; Adam R Kosteva; Shyam Prabhakaran; Andrew M Naidech Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Gregory Y H Lip; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Jeroen Bax; Elaine Hylek; Stefan Kaab; Ulrich Schotten; Karl Wegscheider; Giuseppe Boriani; Axel Brandes; Michael Ezekowitz; Hans Diener; Laurent Haegeli; Hein Heidbuchel; Deirdre Lane; Luis Mont; Stephan Willems; Paul Dorian; Maria Aunes-Jansson; Carina Blomstrom-Lundqvist; Maria Borentain; Stefanie Breitenstein; Martina Brueckmann; Nilo Cater; Andreas Clemens; Dobromir Dobrev; Sergio Dubner; Nils G Edvardsson; Leif Friberg; Andreas Goette; Michele Gulizia; Robert Hatala; Jenny Horwood; Lukas Szumowski; Lukas Kappenberger; Josef Kautzner; Angelika Leute; Trudie Lobban; Ralf Meyer; Jay Millerhagen; John Morgan; Felix Muenzel; Michael Nabauer; Christoph Baertels; Michael Oeff; Dieter Paar; Juergen Polifka; Ursula Ravens; Ludger Rosin; W Stegink; Gerhard Steinbeck; Panos Vardas; Alphons Vincent; Maureen Walter; Günter Breithardt; A John Camm Journal: Europace Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Shamir Haji; Ryan Planchard; Adeel Zubair; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Charlotte Rydberg; Robert D Brown; Kelly D Flemming Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Ellis S van Etten; Eitan Auriel; Kellen E Haley; Alison M Ayres; Anastasia Vashkevich; Kristin M Schwab; Jonathan Rosand; Anand Viswanathan; Steven M Greenberg; M Edip Gurol Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 7.914