Comparison of Stroke and Bleeding Risk Profile in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease.

Clinical decision making on anticoagulation in patients with chronic kidney disease with atrial fibrillation (AF) is challenging. The current strategies are based on small observational studies with conflicting results. This study explores the impact of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in the embolic-hemorrhagic balance among a large cohort of patients with AF. The study cohort included 15,457 patients diagnosed with AF between January 2014 and April 2020. The risk of ischemic stroke and major bleeding was determined by competing risk regression. During a mean follow-up of 4.29 ± 1.82 years, 3,678 patients (23.80%) died, 850 (5.50%) had an ischemic stroke, and 961 (6.22%) had a major bleeding. The incidence of stroke and bleeding increased as baseline GFR decreased. Interestingly, in GFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, the bleeding risk was clearly higher than the embolic risk. As GFR decreased, anticoagulation was associated with an increased bleeding risk (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.700, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13 to 2.54, p = 0.009 for patients with GFR 30 to 59 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 2.00, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.21, p = 0.156 for subjects with <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 compared with those with GFR >60 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively), but it was not associated with a decrease in embolic risk in patients with GFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 5.04, p = 0.189) In GFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, the increase of major bleeding risk was higher than the increase of ischemic stroke risk, with a negative anticoagulation balance (greater increase in bleeding than reduction in embolism).

Validation of Embolic and Bleeding Risk Scores in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer.

Little is known about the prediction of atrial fibrillation (AF) risk scores in patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores in patients with AF and cancer. Overall, 16,056 patients with AF diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 from a Spanish health area, including 1,137 patients with cancer, were observed during a median follow-up of 4.9 years. Although discrimination was similar between patients with cancer and patients without cancer who were treated with anticoagulation therapy (0.56 and 0.58), in patients with cancer who were not treated with anticoagulation therapy, c-statistic of CHA2DS2-VASc was poor and significantly lower than in the patients without cancer (0.42 vs 0.65). The overall precision of the CHA2DS2-VASc score was good throughout the follow-up (Brier score < 0.1), in patients with and without cancer. Regarding the HAS-BLED score, calibration and discrimination were poor in patients with cancer (c-statistic 0.51), similar to those in patients without cancer (c-statistic 0.53). In patients with cancer who were not treated with anticoagulation therapy, the embolic risk CHA2DS2-VASc score = 1 was similar to CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. Only patients with AF and cancer and CHA2DS2-VASc score = 0 presented a low risk of embolic events (negative predictive value 100%). A HAS-BLED score > 3 was not associated with higher bleeding risk in patients with cancer (p > 0.05). In summary, in patients with cancer and with AF, neither the CHA2DS2-VASc score nor the HAS-BLED score was useful for predicting embolic and hemorrhagic events, respectively. However, a CHA2DS2-VASc score 0 is useful to identify patients with AF and cancer who are at low embolic risk.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Versus Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Preserved Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) showed comparable survival results in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, there is lack of evidence of the comparative effectiveness in preserved LVEF patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the selection between ACEi and ARB in preserved LVEF after an ACS confers a prognostic benefit, based on real life results. We analyzed a cohort of 3006 contemporary patients with LVEF ≥40% after an ACS. A propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were performed to assess the association between treatment and events (death, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], HF, and combined event) for a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.1 years. We found no significant differences between ACEi/ARB for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for ARB: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70-1.29), AMI (HR for ARB: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95-1.89), HF (HR for ARB: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.45), or combined end point (death, AMI and HF: HR for ARB: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.40). In conclusion, there are no prognostic differences between the use of ACEi and ARB in patients with LVEF ≥40% after ACS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.