7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Clinical Outcomes Associated With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

          Four new oral anticoagulants compare favourably with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation; however, the balance between efficacy and safety in subgroups needs better definition. We aimed to assess the relative benefit of new oral anticoagulants in key subgroups, and the effects on important secondary outcomes. We searched Medline from Jan 1, 2009, to Nov 19, 2013, limiting searches to phase 3, randomised trials of patients with atrial fibrillation who were randomised to receive new oral anticoagulants or warfarin, and trials in which both efficacy and safety outcomes were reported. We did a prespecified meta-analysis of all 71,683 participants included in the RE-LY, ROCKET AF, ARISTOTLE, and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trials. The main outcomes were stroke and systemic embolic events, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs for each outcome. We did subgroup analyses to assess whether differences in patient and trial characteristics affected outcomes. We used a random-effects model to compare pooled outcomes and tested for heterogeneity. 42,411 participants received a new oral anticoagulant and 29,272 participants received warfarin. New oral anticoagulants significantly reduced stroke or systemic embolic events by 19% compared with warfarin (RR 0·81, 95% CI 0·73-0·91; p<0·0001), mainly driven by a reduction in haemorrhagic stroke (0·49, 0·38-0·64; p<0·0001). New oral anticoagulants also significantly reduced all-cause mortality (0·90, 0·85-0·95; p=0·0003) and intracranial haemorrhage (0·48, 0·39-0·59; p<0·0001), but increased gastrointestinal bleeding (1·25, 1·01-1·55; p=0·04). We noted no heterogeneity for stroke or systemic embolic events in important subgroups, but there was a greater relative reduction in major bleeding with new oral anticoagulants when the centre-based time in therapeutic range was less than 66% than when it was 66% or more (0·69, 0·59-0·81 vs 0·93, 0·76-1·13; p for interaction 0·022). Low-dose new oral anticoagulant regimens showed similar overall reductions in stroke or systemic embolic events to warfarin (1·03, 0·84-1·27; p=0·74), and a more favourable bleeding profile (0·65, 0·43-1·00; p=0·05), but significantly more ischaemic strokes (1·28, 1·02-1·60; p=0·045). This meta-analysis is the first to include data for all four new oral anticoagulants studied in the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials for stroke prevention or systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. New oral anticoagulants had a favourable risk-benefit profile, with significant reductions in stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality, and with similar major bleeding as for warfarin, but increased gastrointestinal bleeding. The relative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants was consistent across a wide range of patients. Our findings offer clinicians a more comprehensive picture of the new oral anticoagulants as a therapeutic option to reduce the risk of stroke in this patient population. None. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology.

            The methodological advances in epidemiology have facilitated the use of the Danish Civil Registration System (CRS) in ways not previously described systematically. We reviewed the CRS and its use as a research tool in epidemiology. We obtained information from the Danish Law on Civil Registration and the Central Office of Civil Registration, and used existing literature to provide illustrative examples of its use. The CRS is an administrative register established on April 2, 1968. It contains individual-level information on all persons residing in Denmark (and Greenland as of May 1, 1972). By January 2014, the CRS had cumulatively registered 9.5 million individuals and more than 400 million person-years of follow-up. A unique ten-digit Civil Personal Register number assigned to all persons in the CRS allows for technically easy, cost-effective, and unambiguous individual-level record linkage of Danish registers. Daily updated information on migration and vital status allows for nationwide cohort studies with virtually complete long-term follow-up on emigration and death. The CRS facilitates sampling of general population comparison cohorts, controls in case-control studies, family cohorts, and target groups in population surveys. The data in the CRS are virtually complete, have high accuracy, and can be retrieved for research purposes while protecting the anonymity of Danish residents. In conclusion, the CRS is a key tool for epidemiological research in Denmark.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
                JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
                Elsevier BV
                19368798
                January 2021
                January 2021
                : 14
                : 1
                : 69-78
                Article
                10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.051
                33413867
                a4d57657-a3a6-49b2-b13c-dd16e67207af
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article