Baseline Characteristics and 3-Year Outcome of Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with the Four Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs).

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent the cornerstone therapy for cardioembolic events prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). In practice, the choice of one DOAC over another is guided by the decision-making process of the physician, which considers specific patient and drug characteristics. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and long-term outcomes of a real-world population treated with DOACs, where the use of the 4 different DOACs is quite equal. We conducted a retrospective observational, single-center, multidisciplinary study enrolling consecutive NVAF patients treated with one of the 4 DOACs. From an initial number of 753 patients, we excluded 72 patients because of loss to follow-up, at the end we enrolled 681:174 (23%) treated with dabigatran, 175 (23%) with apixaban, 190 (25%) with rivaroxaban, and 214 (29%) with edoxaban. Patients treated with apixaban were significantly older, more women represented (p <0.001), and with a higher cardioembolic and bleeding risk (p <0.001). Dabigatran was preferred in patients with liver failure (p = 0.008), whereas Apixaban and Edoxaban were chosen in chronic kidney disease (p = 0.002). At 3-year follow-up, 20 patients (2.7%) experienced a systemic thromboembolic event without significant differences in the 4 DOACs. In the same period, an International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis classification major bleeding event occurred in 26 patients (3.6%), more statistically correlated to edoxaban (6.1%) (p = 0.038). Thromboembolic events or major bleeding were higher in the edoxaban group (10%) compared with the others (p = 0.014). In our single-center real-world experience, the choice of the DOAC for a patient with NVAF was tailored to specific clinical features and drug pharmacokinetics of the patient. As a result, a small number of adverse events were observed.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in atrial fibrillation: 5-year outcomes.

BACKGROUND: LAAO is an emerging option for thromboembolic event prevention in patients with NVAF. We previously reported data on comparison between LAAO and DOAC at two-year follow-up in NVAF patients at HBR (HAS-BLED ≥3). AIMS: Limited data are available on long term follow-up. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LAAO indication after 5 years. METHODS: We enrolled 193 HBR treated with LAAO and 189 HBR patients with DOACs. At baseline, LAAO group had higher HAS-BLED (4.2 vs 3.3, p < 0.001) and lower CHADS-VASc (4.3 vs. 4.7, p = 0.005). After 1:1 PSM, 192 patients were included (LAAO n = 96; DOACs n = 96). RESULTS: At 5-year follow-up the rate of the combined safety and effectiveness endpoint (ISTH major bleeding and thromboembolic events) was significantly higher in LAAO group (p = 0.042), driven by a higher number of thromboembolic events (p = 0.047). The rate of ISTH-major bleeding events was similar (p = 0.221). After PSM no significant difference in the primary effectiveness (LAAO 13.3% vs DOACs 9.5%, p = 0.357) and safety endpoint (LAAO 7.5% vs DOACs 7.5%; p = 0.918) were evident. Overall bleeding rate was significantly higher in DOACs group (25.0% vs 13.7%, p = 0.048), while a non-significant higher number of TIA was reported in LAAO group (5.4% vs 1.1%, p = 0.098). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were higher in LAAO group at both unmatched and matched analysis. CONCLUSION: We confirmed safety and effectiveness of both DOAC and LAAO in NVAF patients at HBR, with no significant differences in thromboembolic events or major bleeding were at 5-year follow-up. The observed increased mortality after LAAO warrants further investigations in RCTs.