Outcomes of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Newly Recommended for Oral Anticoagulation Under the 2014 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society Guideline. Issue 1 (4th January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gray, Matthew P.; Saba, Samir; Zhang, Yuting; Hernandez, Inmaculada
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Heart Association. Volume 7:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2018-01-04
• Subjects: anticoagulant -- atrial fibrillation -- hemorrhage -- stroke; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cerebrovascular disease -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007881
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-9980

Abstract

Abstract : Background: In March 2014, the American Heart Association updated their guidelines for the management of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in atrial fibrillation, recommending OAC for all patients with CHA2 DS2 ‐VASc ≥2. Previously, only patients with CHADS2 ≥2 were recommended for anticoagulation. This study compared effectiveness and safety outcomes of OAC among patients who would receive OAC using the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines. Methods and Results: Using claims data from a 5% sample of 2013–2014 Medicare beneficiaries, we identified patients with initially diagnosed atrial fibrillation between 2013 and 2014 and selected those who would receive OAC under the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines (those with CHA2 DS2 ‐VASc score ≥2 or CHADS2 score <2). Patients were categorized according to their use of OAC after first atrial fibrillation diagnosis (2937 users and 2914 nonusers). Primary outcomes included the composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism and death, and any bleeding event. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to compare the risk of primary outcomes between the 2 groups, while controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. There was no difference in the combined risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death between the treatment groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.20). The risk of bleeding was higher for patients receiving OAC than for patients not receiving OAC (hazard ratio, 1.70, 95% confidence interval, 1.46–1.97). Conclusions: The benefit of OAC is not well defined in this patient population, and new studies that minimize residual confounding are needed to fully understand the risk/benefit of OAC in patients with atrial fibrillation and low to moderate stroke risk.