Thibaut Galvain1, Ruaraidh Hill2, Sarah Donegan3, Paulo Lisboa4, Gregory Y H Lip5, Gabriela Czanner4,6. 1. School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. t.galvain@2019.ljmu.ac.uk. 2. Liverpool Reviews And Implementation Group, Health Data Science, Liverpool Health Partners, University of Liverpool and The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals, Liverpool, UK. 3. Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 4. School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK. 5. Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK. 6. Faculty of Informatics and Information Technologies, Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of stroke. Anticoagulants substantially reduce risk of stroke but are also associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Because of that, many patients do not receive anticoagulants, particularly patients at risk of falls. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare anticoagulant treatment options for the management of atrial fibrillation patients at risk of falls or with a history of falls. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA systematic review (until March 2022), including studies evaluating safety and efficacy of different anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist [VKA] versus non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant [NOAC]). Outcomes were ischemic stroke, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. A multilevel meta-analysis was conducted adjusting for clustering effects within studies examining more than one effect size. RESULTS: A total of 919 articles were identified, 848 after removing duplicates. The full text of 155 were screened and 10 articles were retained for final quantitative synthesis. Risk of bias was moderate to serious for the included studies. In meta-analysis, NOACs were associated with superior effectiveness compared with VKA for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.98; p < 0.05) and safety (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.40-0.71; p < 0.05) for intracranial hemorrhage. There were no differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: NOACs were associated with less intracranial hemorrhages and ischemic strokes/systemic embolisms than VKAs in AF patients at risk of falls. These findings suggesting preferred use of NOACs over VKAs have clinical implications for physicians, patients and policy makers.
INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of stroke. Anticoagulants substantially reduce risk of stroke but are also associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Because of that, many patients do not receive anticoagulants, particularly patients at risk of falls. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare anticoagulant treatment options for the management of atrial fibrillation patients at risk of falls or with a history of falls. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA systematic review (until March 2022), including studies evaluating safety and efficacy of different anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist [VKA] versus non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant [NOAC]). Outcomes were ischemic stroke, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. A multilevel meta-analysis was conducted adjusting for clustering effects within studies examining more than one effect size. RESULTS: A total of 919 articles were identified, 848 after removing duplicates. The full text of 155 were screened and 10 articles were retained for final quantitative synthesis. Risk of bias was moderate to serious for the included studies. In meta-analysis, NOACs were associated with superior effectiveness compared with VKA for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.98; p < 0.05) and safety (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.40-0.71; p < 0.05) for intracranial hemorrhage. There were no differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: NOACs were associated with less intracranial hemorrhages and ischemic strokes/systemic embolisms than VKAs in AF patients at risk of falls. These findings suggesting preferred use of NOACs over VKAs have clinical implications for physicians, patients and policy makers.
Authors: A H Katsanos; P D Schellinger; M Köhrmann; A Filippatou; M E Gurol; V Caso; M Paciaroni; F Perren; A V Alexandrov; G Tsivgoulis Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2018-07-21 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Matthew Sussman; Geoffrey D Barnes; Jennifer D Guo; Charles Y Tao; John A Gillespie; Mauricio Ferri; Nicholas Adair; Matthew S Cato; Ilnaz Shirkhorshidian; Manuela Di Fusco Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Sumeet S Chugh; Rasmus Havmoeller; Kumar Narayanan; David Singh; Michiel Rienstra; Emelia J Benjamin; Richard F Gillum; Young-Hoon Kim; John H McAnulty; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Mohsen Naghavi; George A Mensah; Majid Ezzati; Christopher J L Murray Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ajay K Kakkar; Iris Mueller; Jean-Pierre Bassand; David A Fitzmaurice; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Shinya Goto; Sylvia Haas; Werner Hacke; Gregory Y H Lip; Lorenzo G Mantovani; Alexander G G Turpie; Martin van Eickels; Frank Misselwitz; Sophie Rushton-Smith; Gloria Kayani; Peter Wilkinson; Freek W A Verheugt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240