Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical atrial fibrillation is short-lasting and asymptomatic and can usually be detected only by long-term continuous monitoring with pacemakers or defibrillators. Subclinical atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of stroke by a factor of 2.5; however, treatment with oral anticoagulation is of uncertain benefit. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting 6 minutes to 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive apixaban at a dose of 5 mg twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily when indicated) or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg daily. The trial medication was discontinued and anticoagulation started if subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting more than 24 hours or clinical atrial fibrillation developed. The primary efficacy outcome, stroke or systemic embolism, was assessed in the intention-to-treat population (all the patients who had undergone randomization); the primary safety outcome, major bleeding, was assessed in the on-treatment population (all the patients who had undergone randomization and received at least one dose of the assigned trial drug, with follow-up censored 5 days after permanent discontinuation of trial medication for any reason). RESULTS: We included 4012 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 76.8±7.6 years and a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.9±1.1 (scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of stroke); 36.1% of the patients were women. After a mean follow-up of 3.5±1.8 years, stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year) and in 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007). In the on-treatment population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.57; P = 0.001). Fatal bleeding occurred in 5 patients in the apixaban group and 8 patients in the aspirin group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation, apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin but a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ARTESIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01938248.).

Early versus Later Anticoagulation for Stroke with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The effect of early as compared with later initiation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in persons with atrial fibrillation who have had an acute ischemic stroke is unclear. METHODS: We performed an investigator-initiated, open-label trial at 103 sites in 15 countries. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to early anticoagulation (within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke) or later anticoagulation (day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke). Assessors were unaware of the trial-group assignments. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included the components of the composite primary outcome at 30 and 90 days. RESULTS: Of 2013 participants (37% with minor stroke, 40% with moderate stroke, and 23% with major stroke), 1006 were assigned to early anticoagulation and 1007 to later anticoagulation. A primary-outcome event occurred in 29 participants (2.9%) in the early-treatment group and 41 participants (4.1%) in the later-treatment group (risk difference, -1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.84 to 0.47) by 30 days. Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 14 participants (1.4%) in the early-treatment group and 25 participants (2.5%) in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.07) by 30 days and in 18 participants (1.9%) and 30 participants (3.1%), respectively, by 90 days (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.06). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2 participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, the incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death at 30 days was estimated to range from 2.8 percentage points lower to 0.5 percentage points higher (based on the 95% confidence interval) with early than with later use of DOACs. (Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and others; ELAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03148457.).

In subclinical AF, apixaban reduced stroke or systemic embolism but increased major bleeding vs. aspirin at 3.5 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Healey JS, Lopes RD, Granger CB, et al; ARTESIA Investigators. Apixaban for stroke prevention in subclinical atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:107-117. 37952132.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, and Warfarin in Patients With Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation : A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin have shown benefit for preventing major ischemic events, albeit with increased bleeding risk, among patients in the general population with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data are scarce in patients with cirrhosis and AF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of apixaban versus rivaroxaban and versus warfarin in patients with cirrhosis and AF. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Two U.S. claims data sets (Medicare and Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database [2013 to 2022]). PARTICIPANTS: 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched patients with cirrhosis and nonvalvular AF initiating use of apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes included ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major hemorrhage (intracranial hemorrhage or major gastrointestinal bleeding). Database-specific and pooled PS-matched rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years (PY) and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated, controlling for 104 preexposure covariates. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban initiators had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhagic events than apixaban initiators (RD, 33.1 per 1000 PY [95% CI, 12.9 to 53.2 per 1000 PY]; HR, 1.47 [CI, 1.11 to 1.94]) but no significant differences in rates of ischemic events or death. Consistently higher rates of major hemorrhage were found with rivaroxaban across subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Warfarin initiators also had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhage than apixaban initiators (RD, 26.1 per 1000 PY [CI, 6.8 to 45.3 per 1000 PY]; HR, 1.38 [CI, 1.03 to 1.84]), particularly hemorrhagic stroke (RD, 9.7 per 1000 PY [CI, 2.2 to 17.2 per 1000 PY]; HR, 2.85 [CI, 1.24 to 6.59]). LIMITATION: Nonrandomized treatment selection. CONCLUSION: Among patients with cirrhosis and nonvalvular AF, initiators of rivaroxaban versus apixaban had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhage and similar rates of ischemic events and death. Initiation of warfarin versus apixaban also contributed to significantly higher rates of major hemorrhagic events, including hemorrhagic stroke. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Liver Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit-risk profile of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin, and between DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic liver disease is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a new-user, retrospective cohort study of patients with AF and chronic liver disease who were enrolled in a large, US-based administrative database between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of DOACs (as a class and individually) compared with warfarin, and between DOACs in patients with AF and chronic liver disease. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and hospitalization for major bleeding. Inverse probability treatment weights were used to balance the treatment groups on measured confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 10 209 participants were included, with 4421 (43.2%) on warfarin, 2721 (26.7%) apixaban, 2211 (21.7%) rivaroxaban, and 851 (8.3%) dabigatran. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism were 2.2, 1.4, 2.6, and 4.4 for DOACs as a class, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for major bleeding were 7.9, 6.5, 9.1, and 15.0 for DOACs as a class, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. After inverse probability treatment weights, the risk of hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism was significantly lower between DOACs as a class (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.90]) or apixaban (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.19-0.82]) compared with warfarin, but not significantly different between rivaroxaban versus warfarin (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.47-1.21]) or rivaroxaban versus apixaban (HR, 1.73 [95% CI, 0.91-3.29]). Compared with warfarin, the risk of hospitalization for major bleeding was lower with DOACs as a class (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.58-0.82]), apixaban (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.46-0.78]), and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.62-1.0]). However, the risk of hospitalization for major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban versus apixaban (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.18-2.14]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF and chronic liver disease, DOACs as a class were associated with lower risks of hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding versus warfarin. However, the incidence of clinical outcomes among patients with AF and chronic liver disease varied between individual DOACs and warfarin, and in head-to-head DOAC comparisons.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Surgical occlusion of the left atrial appendage has been hypothesized to prevent ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but this has not been proved. The procedure can be performed during cardiac surgery undertaken for other reasons. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial involving participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 (on a scale from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater risk of stroke) who were scheduled to undergo cardiac surgery for another indication. The participants were randomly assigned to undergo or not undergo occlusion of the left atrial appendage during surgery; all the participants were expected to receive usual care, including oral anticoagulation, during follow-up. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ischemic stroke (including transient ischemic attack with positive neuroimaging) or systemic embolism. The participants, research personnel, and primary care physicians (other than the surgeons) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. RESULTS: The primary analysis population included 2379 participants in the occlusion group and 2391 in the no-occlusion group, with a mean age of 71 years and a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.2. The participants were followed for a mean of 3.8 years. A total of 92.1% of the participants received the assigned procedure, and at 3 years, 76.8% of the participants continued to receive oral anticoagulation. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 114 participants (4.8%) in the occlusion group and in 168 (7.0%) in the no-occlusion group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.85; P = 0.001). The incidence of perioperative bleeding, heart failure, or death did not differ significantly between the trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with atrial fibrillation who had undergone cardiac surgery, most of whom continued to receive ongoing antithrombotic therapy, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lower with concomitant left atrial appendage occlusion performed during the surgery than without it. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; LAAOS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01561651.).

Temporal trends in anticoagulation use and clinical outcomes among medicare beneficiaries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: Oral anticoagulants effectively prevent stroke/systemic embolism among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation but remain under-prescribed. This study evaluated temporal trends in oral anticoagulant use, the incidence of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding, and economic outcomes among elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥ 2. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were conducted on Medicare claims data from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2017. Non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients aged ≥ 65 years with CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥ 2 were stratified by calendar year (2013-2016) of care to create calendar-year cohorts. Patient characteristics were evaluated across all cohorts during the baseline period (12 months before diagnosis). Treatment patterns and clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated during the follow-up period (from diagnosis through 12 months). RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics remained generally similar between 2013 and 2016. Although lack of oral anticoagulant prescriptions among eligible patients remained relatively high, utilization did increase progressively (53-58%). Among treated patients, there was a progressive decrease in warfarin use (79-52%) and a progressive increase in overall direct oral anticoagulant use (21-48%). There were progressive decreases in the incidence of stroke/systemic embolism 1.9-1.4 events per 100 person years) and major bleeding (4.6-3.3 events per 100 person years) as well as all-cause costs between 2013 and 2016. CONCLUSIONS: The proportions of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were not prescribed an oral anticoagulant decreased but remained high. We observed an increase in direct oral anticoagulant use that coincided with decreased incidence of clinical outcomes as well as decreasing total healthcare costs.

Effectiveness and safety in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in US healthcare claims.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of real-world studies examining the risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients switching from warfarin to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). This retrospective study was conducted to compare the stroke/SE and MB risks between patients switched from warfarin to apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban in real-world clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used data from four United States commercial claims databases from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2019. The study population included NVAF patients initially treated with warfarin and switched to apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban within 90 days of their warfarin prescription ending. Patients were matched 1:1 between the DOACs in each database using propensity scores and then pooled for the final analysis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the risk of stroke/SE and MB. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The final population consisted of 2,611 apixaban-dabigatran, 12,165 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 2,672 dabigatran-rivaroxaban pairs. Apixaban vs. dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.96) and MB (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91). Apixaban vs. rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07) and a lower risk of MB (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.52-0.68). There was no significant difference in either risk between dabigatran and rivaroxaban. These results provide important insights into how the risks of stroke/SE and MB for NVAF patients vary when switching from warfarin to different DOACs.

Risk for Bleeding-Related Hospitalizations During Use of Amiodarone With Apixaban or Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone, the most effective antiarrhythmic drug in atrial fibrillation, inhibits apixaban and rivaroxaban elimination, thus possibly increasing anticoagulant-related risk for bleeding. OBJECTIVE: For patients receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban, to compare risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations during treatment with amiodarone versus flecainide or sotalol, antiarrhythmic drugs that do not inhibit these anticoagulants' elimination. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. PATIENTS: Patients with atrial fibrillation began anticoagulant use between 1 January 2012 and 30 November 2018 and subsequently initiated treatment with study antiarrhythmic drugs. MEASUREMENTS: Time to event for bleeding-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death with or without recent (past 30 days) evidence of bleeding (secondary outcomes), adjusted with propensity score overlap weighting. RESULTS: There were 91 590 patients (mean age, 76.3 years; 52.5% female) initiating use of study anticoagulants and antiarrhythmic drugs, 54 977 with amiodarone and 36 613 with flecainide or sotalol. Risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations increased with amiodarone use (rate difference [RD], 17.5 events [95% CI, 12.0 to 23.0 events] per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [CI, 1.27 to 1.63]). Incidence of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism did not increase (RD, -2.1 events [CI, -4.7 to 0.4 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.80 [CI, 0.62 to 1.03]). The risk for death with recent evidence of bleeding (RD, 9.1 events [CI, 5.8 to 12.3 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.66 [CI, 1.35 to 2.03]) was greater than that for other deaths (RD, 5.6 events [CI, 0.5 to 10.6 events] per 1000 person-years; HR, 1.15 [CI, 1.00 to 1.31]) (HR comparison: P = 0.003). The increased incidence of bleeding-related hospitalizations for rivaroxaban (RD, 28.0 events [CI, 18.4 to 37.6 events] per 1000 person-years) was greater than that for apixaban (RD, 9.1 events [CI, 2.8 to 15.3 events] per 1000 person-years) (P = 0.001). LIMITATION: Possible residual confounding. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation treated with amiodarone during apixaban or rivaroxaban use had greater risk for bleeding-related hospitalizations than those treated with flecainide or sotalol. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Cost-effectiveness of population screening for atrial fibrillation: the STROKESTOP study.

AIMS: Previous studies on the cost-effectiveness of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) are based on assumptions of long-term clinical effects. The STROKESTOP study, which randomised 27 975 persons aged 75/76 years into a screening invitation group and a control group, has a median follow-up time of 6.9 years. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for AF using clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The analysis is based on a Markov cohort model. The prevalence of AF, the use of oral anticoagulation, clinical event data, and all-cause mortality were taken from the STROKESTOP study. The cost for clinical events, age-specific utilities, utility decrement due to stroke, and stroke death was taken from the literature. Uncertainty in the model was considered in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Per 1000 individuals invited to the screening, there were 77 gained life years and 65 gained quality-adjusted life years. The incremental cost was €1.77 million lower in the screening invitation group. Gained quality-adjusted life years to a lower cost means that the screening strategy was dominant. The result from 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations showed that the AF screening strategy was cost-effective in 99.2% and cost-saving in 92.7% of the simulations. In the base-case scenario, screening of 1000 individuals resulted in 10.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): -22.5 to 1.4] fewer strokes (8.4 ischaemic and 2.2 haemorrhagic strokes), 1.0 (95% CI: -1.9 to 4.1) more cases of systemic embolism, and 2.9 (95% CI: -18.2 to 13.1) fewer bleedings associated with hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Based on the STROKESTOP study, this analysis shows that a broad AF screening strategy in an elderly population is cost-effective. Efforts should be made to increase screening participation.

Serious Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Using Diltiazem With Apixaban or Rivaroxaban.

Importance: Diltiazem, a commonly prescribed ventricular rate-control medication for patients with atrial fibrillation, inhibits apixaban and rivaroxaban elimination, possibly causing overanticoagulation. Objective: To compare serious bleeding risk for new users of apixaban or rivaroxaban with atrial fibrillation treated with diltiazem or metoprolol. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation who initiated apixaban or rivaroxaban use and also began treatment with diltiazem or metoprolol between January 1, 2012, and November 29, 2020. Patients were followed up to 365 days through November 30, 2020. Data were analyzed from August 2023 to February 2024. Exposures: Diltiazem and metoprolol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding-related hospitalization and death with recent evidence of bleeding. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, major ischemic or hemorrhagic events (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial or fatal extracranial bleeding, or death with recent evidence of bleeding), and death without recent evidence of bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) were adjusted for covariate differences with overlap weighting. Results: The study included 204 155 US Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 53 275 received diltiazem and 150 880 received metoprolol. Study patients (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [7.0] years; 52.7% female) had 90 927 person-years (PY) of follow-up (median, 120 [IQR, 59-281] days). Patients receiving diltiazem treatment had increased risk for the primary outcome (RD, 10.6 [95% CI, 7.0-14.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.13-1.29]) and its components of bleeding-related hospitalization (RD, 8.2 [95% CI, 5.1-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.13-1.31]) and death with recent evidence of bleeding (RD, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.6-4.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05-1.34]) compared with patients receiving metoprolol. Risk for the primary outcome with initial diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d (RD, 15.1 [95% CI, 10.2-20.1] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.19-1.39]) was greater than that for lower doses (RD, 6.7 [95% CI, 2.0-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]). For doses exceeding 120 mg/d, the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events was increased (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02-1.27]). Neither dose group had significant changes in the risk for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or death without recent evidence of bleeding. When patients receiving high- and low-dose diltiazem treatment were directly compared, the HR for the primary outcome was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: In Medicare patients with atrial fibrillation receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban, diltiazem was associated with greater risk of serious bleeding than metoprolol, particularly for diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d.

Apixaban for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Hemodialysis: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized data evaluating the safety or efficacy of apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis and with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The RENAL-AF trial (Renal Hemodialysis Patients Allocated Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation) was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-outcome evaluation (PROBE) of apixaban versus warfarin in patients receiving hemodialysis with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 mg of apixaban twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily for patients ≥80 years of age, weight ≤60 kg, or both) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The primary outcome was time to major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included stroke, mortality, and apixaban pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetic sampling was day 1, day 3, and month 1. RESULTS: From January 2017 through January 2019, 154 patients were randomly assigned to apixaban (n=82) or warfarin (n=72). The trial stopped prematurely because of enrollment challenges. Time in therapeutic range (international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0) for warfarin-treated patients was 44% (interquartile range, 23%-59%). The 1-year rates for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 32% and 26% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.63-2.30]), whereas 1-year rates for stroke or systemic embolism were 3.0% and 3.3% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively. Death was the most common major event in the apixaban (21 patients [26%]) and warfarin (13 patients [18%]) arms. The pharmacokinetic substudy enrolled the target 50 patients. Median steady-state 12-hour area under the curve was 2475 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 1342-3285) for 5 mg of apixaban twice daily and 1269 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 615-1946) for 2.5 mg of apixaban twice daily. There was substantial overlap between minimum apixaban blood concentration, 12-hour area under the curve, and maximum apixaban blood concentration for patients with and without a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event. CONCLUSIONS: There was inadequate power to draw any conclusion regarding rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding comparing apixaban and warfarin in patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. Clinically relevant bleeding events were ≈10-fold more frequent than stroke or systemic embolism among this population on anticoagulation, highlighting the need for future randomized studies evaluating the risks versus benefits of anticoagulation among patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02942407.

Low-Dose Edoxaban in Very Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of appropriate oral anticoagulant treatment for the prevention of stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation is challenging because of concerns regarding bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial to compare a once-daily 15-mg dose of edoxaban with placebo in elderly Japanese patients (≥80 years of age) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were not considered to be appropriate candidates for oral anticoagulant therapy at doses approved for stroke prevention. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of stroke or systemic embolism, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding according to the definition of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. RESULTS: A total of 984 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a daily dose of 15 mg of edoxaban (492 patients) or placebo (492 patients). A total of 681 patients completed the trial, and 303 discontinued (158 withdrew, 135 died, and 10 had other reasons); the numbers of patients who discontinued the trial were similar in the two groups. The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 2.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.61; P<0.001), and the annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 1.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.90 to 3.89; P = 0.09). There were substantially more events of gastrointestinal bleeding in the edoxaban group than in the placebo group. There was no substantial between-group difference in death from any cause (9.9% in the edoxaban group and 10.2% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.36). CONCLUSIONS: In very elderly Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were not appropriate candidates for standard doses of oral anticoagulants, a once-daily 15-mg dose of edoxaban was superior to placebo in preventing stroke or systemic embolism and did not result in a significantly higher incidence of major bleeding than placebo. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ELDERCARE-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02801669.).

Intensive heart rhythm monitoring to decrease ischemic stroke and systemic embolism-the Find-AF 2 study-rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most frequent causes of stroke. Several randomized trials have shown that prolonged monitoring increases the detection of AF, but the effect on reducing recurrent cardioembolism, ie, ischemic stroke and systemic embolism, remains unknown. We aim to evaluate whether a risk-adapted, intensified heart rhythm monitoring with consequent guideline conform treatment, which implies initiation of oral anticoagulation (OAC), leads to a reduction of recurrent cardioembolism. METHODS: Find-AF 2 is a randomized, controlled, open-label parallel multicenter trial with blinded endpoint assessment. 5,200 patients ≥ 60 years of age with symptomatic ischemic stroke within the last 30 days and without known AF will be included at 52 study centers with a specialized stroke unit in Germany. Patients without AF in an additional 24-hour Holter ECG after the qualifying event will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either enhanced, prolonged and intensified ECG-monitoring (intervention arm) or standard of care monitoring (control arm). In the intervention arm, patients with a high risk of underlying AF will receive continuous rhythm monitoring using an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) whereas those without high risk of underlying AF will receive repeated 7-day Holter ECGs. The duration of rhythm monitoring within the control arm is up to the discretion of the participating centers and is allowed for up to 7 days. Patients will be followed for at least 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint is the time until recurrent ischemic stroke or systemic embolism occur. CONCLUSIONS: The Find-AF 2 trial aims to demonstrate that enhanced, prolonged and intensified rhythm monitoring results in a more effective prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke and systemic embolism compared to usual care.

Rationale and design of a randomized study comparing the Watchman FLX device to DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) was developed as a nonpharmacologic alternative to oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are at an increased risk for stroke or systemic embolism. The Watchman device permanently seals off the LAA to prevent thrombi from escaping into the circulation. Previous randomized trials have established the safety and efficacy of LAAC compared to warfarin. However, direct OACs (DOACs) have become the preferred pharmacologic strategy for stroke prevention in patients with AF, and there is limited data comparing Watchman FLX to DOACs in a broad AF patient population. CHAMPION-AF is designed to prospectively determine whether LAAC with Watchman FLX is a reasonable first-line alternative to DOACs in patients with AF who are indicated for OAC therapy. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 3,000 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 (men) or ≥3 (women) were randomized to Watchman FLX or DOAC in a 1:1 allocation at 142 global clinical sites. Patients in the device arm were to be treated with DOAC and aspirin, DOAC alone, or DAPT for at least 3 months postimplant followed by aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor for 1-year. Control patients were required to take an approved DOAC for the duration of the trial. Clinical follow-up visits are scheduled at 3- and 12-months, and then annually through 5 years; LAA imaging is required at 4 months in the device group. Two primary end points will be evaluated at 3 years: (1) composite of stroke (ischemic/hemorrhagic), cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism compared for noninferiority, and (2) nonprocedural bleeding (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH] major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding) tested for superiority in the device arm against DOACs. The third primary noninferiority end point is the composite of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism at 5 years. Secondary end points include 3- and 5-year rates of (1) ISTH-defined major bleeding and (2) the composite of cardiovascular death, all stroke, systemic embolism, and nonprocedural ISTH bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: This study will prospectively evaluate whether LAAC with the Watchman FLX device is a reasonable alternative to DOACs in patients with AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04394546.

Cardiorenal Outcomes Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulants.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have progressively replaced vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). DOACs cause fewer bleeding complications, but their other advantages, particularly related to kidney outcomes, remain inconclusive. We studied the risks of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression and acute kidney injury (AKI) after DOAC and VKA administration for nonvalvular AF. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of Swedish patients enrolled in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project with a diagnosis of nonvalvular AF during 2011-2018. EXPOSURE: Initiation of DOAC or VKA treatment. OUTCOME: Primary outcomes were CKD progression (composite of >30% estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] decline and kidney failure) and AKI (by diagnosis or KDIGO-defined transient creatinine elevations). Secondary outcomes were death, major bleeding, and the composite of stroke and systemic embolism. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Propensity score weighted Cox regression was used to balance 50 baseline confounders. Sensitivity analyses included falsification end points, subgroups, and estimation of per-protocol effects. RESULTS: We included 32,699 patients (56% initiated DOAC) who were observed for a median of 3.8 years. Their median age was 75 years, 45% were women, and 27% had an eGFR <60mL/min/1.73m2. The adjusted HRs for DOAC versus VKA were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.98) for the risk of CKD progression and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.97) for AKI. HRs were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.89) for major bleeding, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.78-1.11) for the composite of stroke and systemic embolism, and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.95-1.14) for death. The results were similar across subgroups of age, sex, and baseline eGFR when restricting to patients at high risk for thromboembolic events and when censoring follow up at treatment discontinuation or change in type of anticoagulation. LIMITATIONS: Missing information on time in therapeutic range and treatment dosages. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with nonvalvular AF treated in routine clinical practice compared with VKA use, DOAC use was associated with a lower risk of CKD progression, AKI, and major bleeding but a similar risk of the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death.

Distal embolic protection use during transfemoral carotid artery stenting is associated with improved in-hospital outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Despite current guidelines recommending the use of distal embolic protection during transfemoral carotid artery stenting (tfCAS) to prevent periprocedural stroke, there remains significant variation in the routine use of distal filters. We sought to assess in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing tfCAS with and without embolic protection using a distal filter. METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing tfCAS in the Vascular Quality Initiative from March 2005 to December 2021 and excluded those who received proximal embolic balloon protection. We created propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent tfCAS with and without attempted placement of a distal filter. Subgroup analyses of patients with failed vs successful filter placement and failed vs no attempt at filter placement were performed. In-hospital outcomes were assessed using log binomial regression, adjusted for protamine use. Outcomes of interest were composite stroke/death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hyperperfusion syndrome. RESULTS: Among 29,853 patients who underwent tfCAS, 28,213 (95%) had a filter attempted for distal embolic protection and 1640 (5%) did not. After matching, 6859 patients were identified. No attempted filter was associated with significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke/death (6.4% vs 3.8%; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.23; P < .001), stroke (3.7% vs 2.5%; aRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .022), and mortality (3.5% vs 1.7%; aRR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.42-3.020; P < .001). In a secondary analysis of patients who had failed attempt at filter placement vs successful filter placement, failed filter placement was associated with worse outcomes (stroke/death: 5.8% vs 2.7%; aRR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.38-3.21; P = .001 and stroke: 5.3% vs 1.8%; aRR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.78-4.61; P < .001). However, there were no differences in outcomes in patients with failed vs no attempted filter placement (stroke/death: 5.4% vs 6.2%; aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.61-1.63; P = .99; stroke: 4.7% vs 3.7%; aRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.79-2.48; P = .20; death: 0.9% vs 3.4%; aRR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.01; P = .052). CONCLUSIONS: tfCAS performed without attempted distal embolic protection was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital stroke and death. Patients undergoing tfCAS after failed attempt at filter placement have equivalent stroke/death to patients in whom no filter was attempted, but more than a two-fold higher risk of stroke/death compared with those with successfully placed filters. These findings support current Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommending routine use of distal embolic protection during tfCAS. If a filter cannot be placed safely, an alternative approach to carotid revascularization should be considered.

The Effect of Peri-Device Leaks on Ischaemic Stroke/Transient Ischaemic Attack/Systemic Embolism after Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a safe and effective method for preventing embolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. However, peri-device leaks (PDLs) are sometimes unavoidable. Controversy exists regarding whether PDLs lead to embolic events. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the association between PDLs and embolic events, including ischaemic stroke, transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs), and systemic embolism (SE). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to September 25, 2022, to compare the rate of ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE between the PDL group and the non-PDL group after LAAC. RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising 54,405 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The PDL group detected by transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) had a significantly higher rate of ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE than the non-PDL group (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.08-1.33, p = 0.0009). However, no difference in ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE was found between the PDL and non-PDL subgroups of the cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) group (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.51-2.50, p = 0.77). CCTA and TEE showed different rates of PDL detection, with the CCTA group having a higher rate of PDL detection (p < 0.0001), especially for trivial leaks. CONCLUSIONS: PDL detected by TEE increases the risk of embolic events after LAAC. However, no association was found between PDL and ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE in the CCTA group, which showed a higher rate of PDL detection than TEE, particularly for trivial leaks. In the future, CCTA may be used to explore the relationship between PDL size and ischaemic stroke/TIA/SE.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Prior Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin for secondary stroke prevention among adult patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke. METHODS: Major repositories were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT subgroups, and observational studies (OBSs, divided in claims and non-claims). Occurrences of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and major bleeding were outcomes of interest. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals (95%CIs) were pooled using random-effects models for each study design. Claims studies were analyzed separately from non-claims, while RCT subgroups were grouped with OBSs (non-claims) as the randomization was broken. RESULTS: Of 8647 articles, 20 were included (one RCT, six RCT subgroups, nine claims, and four non-claims). Comparing DOACs to warfarin, pooled HRs (95%CI) were consistently in favor of DOACs although some did not reach statistical significance: for ischemic stroke, 0.84 (0.66-1.07) in claims; 0.90 (0.77-1.06) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for systemic embolism, 0.77 (0.62-0.96) in claims; 0.86 (0.77-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for all-cause mortality, 0.57 (0.33-0.99) in claims; 0.87 (0.79-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for ICH, 0.72 (0.39-1.33) in claims; 0.51 (0.38-0.67) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; and for major bleeding, 0.86 (0.71-1.03) in claims; 0.90 (0.76-1.08) for non-claims and RCT subgroups. CONCLUSION: DOACs were associated with better efficacy and safety profiles than warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with prior stroke, more specifically a lower risk of systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and ICH.

Novel device for automating exchange transfusions through umbilical venous route in neonates.

Manually performed double-volume exchange transfusion (DVET) is tedious, error-prone, and may incur the risk of embolism. We aimed to develop a device that automates the DVET procedure performed through the umbilical venous route. We evaluated changes in blood passing through the device during DVET. We developed an electro-mechanical device with accessories (tubing and valve assembly) to perform a complete DVET. It comprises two syringes driven by a common pump that moves back and forth to withdraw aliquots of the patient's blood and infuse equal volumes of donor blood. In tandem, it draws donor blood from a blood bank bag and pushes the patient blood drawn from the previous cycle into a waste bag, respectively. One-way duckbill valves and a two-way pinch valve ensure the separation of the donor and patient blood. A sensor detects bubbles and clots. A dashboard displays set and measured parameters. We tested the accuracy of the delivered flow rate and volume, electrical safety, embolus detection, and changes in hematological and biochemical values. The delivered flow and volume were within 5% of the set parameters. All electrical safety parameters were within normal limits. The sensor consistently detected microbubbles and clots. There were no clinically significant differences in laboratory parameters between samples drawn directly from the blood bank bag and drawn from the exit port at 80, 100, 120, and 160 s with a fixed aliquot volume. CONCLUSIONS: Our prototype of a novel device can safely automate a DVET. Further trials of this device are warranted. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Double volume exchange transfusion is often performed manually, but this is time-consuming and error-prone. • Previous attempts at automation were not widely adopted because they involved inserting two catheters and did not have mechanisms to prevent embolism. WHAT IS NEW: • This novel device fully automates double volume exchange transfusions through a single-lumen umbilical venous catheter. • It prevents air and clot embolism and has a screen for input and output parameters and alarms.