Lai-Chu See1,2,3, Hsin-Fu Lee4,5,6,7,8, Tze-Fan Chao9,10, Pei-Ru Li1, Jia-Rou Liu1, Lung-Sheng Wu4,5, Shang-Hung Chang4,5,11, Yung-Hsin Yeh4,5, Chi-Tai Kuo4,5, Yi-Hsin Chan12,13,14, Gregory Y H Lip15. 1. Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, 33302, Taiwan. 2. Biostatistics Core Laboratory, Molecular Medicine Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, 33302, Taiwan. 3. Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, 33305, Taiwan. 4. The Cardiovascular Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, 33305, Taiwan. 5. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, 33302, Taiwan. 6. Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 7. New Taipei City Municipal Tucheng Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 8. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Tucheng branch, Taoyuan City, Taiwan. 9. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 10. Institute of Clinical Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Center, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 11. Center for Big Data Analytics and Statistics, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 12. The Cardiovascular Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, 33305, Taiwan. s851047@hotmail.com. 13. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, 33302, Taiwan. s851047@hotmail.com. 14. Microscopy Core Laboratory, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, 33305, Taiwan. s851047@hotmail.com. 15. Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK. gregory.lip@liverpool.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Whether direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are more effective and safer than warfarin among Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) undergoing dialysis remains unclear. METHODS: We first compared the risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) and major bleeding associated with DOACs compared with warfarin, in NVAF Asians undergoing dialysis using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) (Aim 1). Next, we searched PubMed and Medline from January 1, 2010 until January 31, 2020, to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing DOACs with warfarin specifically focused on NVAF patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis (Aim 2). Finally, we tested the hypothesis whether AF patients undergoing dialysis treated with OACs (warfarin and DOACs) would be associated with lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes as compared to those without OACs using the Taiwan NHIRD (Aim 3). RESULTS: From June 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017, a total of 3237 and 9263 NVAF patients comorbid with ESRD receiving oral anticoagulant (OACs) (490 on DOAC, 2747 on warfarin) or no OACs, respectively, were enrolled. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates across the study groups. For the comparison of DOAC vs. warfarin (Aim 1), DOACs had comparable risks of IS/SE and major bleeding to warfarin in our present cohort. From the original 85 results retrieved, nine studies (including our study) with a total of 6490 and 22,494 patients treated with DOACs and warfarin were included in the meta-analysis, respectively. There were 5343 (82%) and 20,337 (90%) patients treated with DOACs and warfarin undergoing dialysis, respectively. The pooled meta-analysis also indicated no difference of the effectiveness (HR:0.90; [95%CI:0.74-1.10]; P = 0.32) and safety outcomes (HR:0.75; [95%CI:0.54-1.05]; P = 0.09) between DOACs and warfarin (Aim 2). For the comparison of OAC (+) vs. OAC (-) (Aim 3), OAC-treatment was associated with a higher risk of IS/SE (hazard ratio (HR):1.54; [95% confidential interval (CI):1.29-1.84];P < 0.0001) and comparable risk of major bleeding compared to those without OAC treatment. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs did not provide benefit over warfarin regarding effectiveness and safety in AF patients undergoing dialysis. The use of OAC was not associated with a lower risk of IS/SE in ESRD AF patients when compared to those without OAC use.
PURPOSE: Whether direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are more effective and safer than warfarin among Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) undergoing dialysis remains unclear. METHODS: We first compared the risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) and major bleeding associated with DOACs compared with warfarin, in NVAF Asians undergoing dialysis using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) (Aim 1). Next, we searched PubMed and Medline from January 1, 2010 until January 31, 2020, to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing DOACs with warfarin specifically focused on NVAF patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis (Aim 2). Finally, we tested the hypothesis whether AF patients undergoing dialysis treated with OACs (warfarin and DOACs) would be associated with lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes as compared to those without OACs using the Taiwan NHIRD (Aim 3). RESULTS: From June 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017, a total of 3237 and 9263 NVAF patients comorbid with ESRD receiving oral anticoagulant (OACs) (490 on DOAC, 2747 on warfarin) or no OACs, respectively, were enrolled. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates across the study groups. For the comparison of DOAC vs. warfarin (Aim 1), DOACs had comparable risks of IS/SE and major bleeding to warfarin in our present cohort. From the original 85 results retrieved, nine studies (including our study) with a total of 6490 and 22,494 patients treated with DOACs and warfarin were included in the meta-analysis, respectively. There were 5343 (82%) and 20,337 (90%) patients treated with DOACs and warfarin undergoing dialysis, respectively. The pooled meta-analysis also indicated no difference of the effectiveness (HR:0.90; [95%CI:0.74-1.10]; P = 0.32) and safety outcomes (HR:0.75; [95%CI:0.54-1.05]; P = 0.09) between DOACs and warfarin (Aim 2). For the comparison of OAC (+) vs. OAC (-) (Aim 3), OAC-treatment was associated with a higher risk of IS/SE (hazard ratio (HR):1.54; [95% confidential interval (CI):1.29-1.84];P < 0.0001) and comparable risk of major bleeding compared to those without OAC treatment. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs did not provide benefit over warfarin regarding effectiveness and safety in AF patients undergoing dialysis. The use of OAC was not associated with a lower risk of IS/SE in ESRD AF patients when compared to those without OAC use.
Authors: Ron Pisters; Deirdre A Lane; Robby Nieuwlaat; Cees B de Vos; Harry J G M Crijns; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Chest Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Hugh Calkins; Lin Y Chen; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Karen L Furie; Paul A Heidenreich; Katherine T Murray; Julie B Shea; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jan Steffel; Peter Verhamme; Tatjana S Potpara; Pierre Albaladejo; Matthias Antz; Lien Desteghe; Karl Georg Haeusler; Jonas Oldgren; Holger Reinecke; Vanessa Roldan-Schilling; Nigel Rowell; Peter Sinnaeve; Ronan Collins; A John Camm; Hein Heidbüchel Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Gregory Y H Lip; Amitava Banerjee; Giuseppe Boriani; Chern En Chiang; Ramiz Fargo; Ben Freedman; Deirdre A Lane; Christian T Ruff; Mintu Turakhia; David Werring; Sheena Patel; Lisa Moores Journal: Chest Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Kevin E Chan; Robert P Giugliano; Manesh R Patel; Stuart Abramson; Meg Jardine; Sophia Zhao; Vlado Perkovic; Franklin W Maddux; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 24.094