Background: Oral anticoagulants (OAC) are underutilized in older patients with atrial fibrillation, despite proven clinical benefits. Our objective was to investigate baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and impact of anticoagulation upon clinical outcomes with respect to age. Methods: Adults with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation were recruited into the prospective observational registry, GARFIELD-AF, and followed up for 24 months. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were obtained via Cox proportional-hazards models with applied weights, to quantify the association of age with clinical outcomes. Comparative effectiveness of OAC vs No OAC and non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) vs vitamin K antagonists (VKA) were assessed using a propensity score with an overlap weighting scheme. Results: Of 52,018 patients, 32.6% were 65-74 years of age, 29.3% were 75-84 years, and 7.9% were ≥85 years. OAC treatment was associated with a numerical reduction in all-cause mortality among those aged 65-74 years (HR; 95% confidence interval) (0.86; 0.69-1.06) and aged 75-84 years (0.89; 0.75-1.05) and a significant reduction in patients ≥85 years (0.77; 0.63-0.95) vs no OAC. Similarly, OACs were associated with a decrease in stroke: 65-74 (0.51; 0.35-0.76) and ≥85 years (0.58; 0.34-0.99) and a numerical decrease in 75-84 years (0.84; 0.59-1.18). No increase in major bleeding was observed in patients aged ≥85 treated with OACs. Compared with VKA, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients aged <65 and 65-74, with numerical reductions in those aged 75-84 and ≥85 years. Conclusions: Older patients using OACs saw lower all-cause mortality and stroke risk; NOACs had less mortality and major bleeding compared with VKAs.

Introduction: Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are first-line drugs for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The introduction of new lines of therapy with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has led to a decreased use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Comparative analyses of DOACs in clinical trials are scarce and the comparator has mostly been warfarin. Their impact on health outcomes in observational studies has not always been consistent. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DOACs and VKAs in patients with AF using Real-World Data (RWD). Methods and analysis: Population-based retrospective cohort study using RWD from actual practice. Period: January 2012-December 2020. Inclusion criteria: patients with AF who had not taken OACs in the previous 12 months. Exclusion criteria: <40 years, with severe mitral stenosis, or valvular heart disease or aortic and/or mitral valve procedures. Data source: The Andalusian Population Health Database, Spain. Outcome measures: a) Effectiveness: ischaemic stroke, transient ischaemic attack, systemic and pulmonary embolism, and death; b) Safety: gastrointestinal and intracranial haemorrhaging; Independent variables: age, sex, comorbidities, medication and health resource use, CHA2DS2-VASC, HAS-BLED, and analytical tests. Statistical analysis: crude incidence analysis, survival models, Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression analysis adjusted for possible confounding and paired analysis by propensity score matching.

Background: The introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), with a non-inferior or superior clinical efficacy profile compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), has significantly improved the safety profile and treatment adherence of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have compared the effectiveness and safety of NOACs. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the safety and clinical effectiveness of NOACs and VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF. Methods: An online bibliographic search was conducted to retrieve real-world evidence studies published between January 2019 and June 2022. Results: Dabigatran was associated with lower risks of major bleeding, ischemic stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin. Among the NOACs, only dabigatran had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than warfarin. Dabigatran was also associated with lower risks of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage than rivaroxaban. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis confirms that dabigatran's real-world safety and clinical effectiveness align with the results of pivotal clinical trials.

Aim: The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate. Structure: Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, guideline documents on the management of anticoagulation were rapidly published. However, these documents did not follow a structured methodology, and significant differences existed between the guidelines. The aim of this expert consensus was to provide recommendations on the clinical management of oral anticoagulation in patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A two-round Delphi study was conducted using an online survey. In the first round, panellists expressed their level of agreement with the items on a 9-point Likert scale. Items were selected if they received approval from ≥66.6% of panellists and if they were agreed by the scientific committee. In the second round, panellists revaluated those items that did not meet consensus in the first round. Results: A total of 147 panellists completed the first round, and 144 of them completed the second round. Consensus was reached on 161 items included in five dimensions. These dimensions addressed: (I) management of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) without mechanical valves or moderate/severe mitral stenosis during COVID-19 infection; (II) thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalised for COVID-19; (III) management of anticoagulation at hospital discharge/after COVID-19; (IV) anticoagulation monitoring in the COVID-19 pandemic setting; and (V) role of telemedicine in the management and follow-up of patients with AF in the COVID-19 pandemic setting. Conclusions: These areas of collective agreement could specially guide clinicians in making decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 during hospitalisation and at discharge, where results from clinical trials are still limited and, in some cases, conflicting.

Background and objectives: Long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) following successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. Prospective data are missing. The ODIn-AF study aimed to evaluate the effect of OAC on the incidence of silent cerebral embolic events and clinically relevant cardioembolic events in patients at intermediate to high risk for embolic events, free from AF after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Methods: This prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, blinded endpoint interventional trial enrolled patients who were scheduled for PVI to treat paroxysmal or persistent AF. Six months after PVI, AF-free patients were randomized to receive either continued OAC with dabigatran or no OAC. The primary endpoint was the incidence of new silent micro- and macro-embolic lesions detected on brain MRI at 12 months of follow-up compared to baseline. Safety analysis included bleedings, clinically evident cardioembolic, and serious adverse events (SAE). Results: Between 2015 and 2021, 200 patients were randomized into 2 study arms (on OAC: n = 99, off OAC: n = 101). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of new cerebral microlesions between the on OAC and off OAC arm [2 (2%) versus 0 (0%); P = 0.1517] after 12 months. MRI showed no new macro-embolic lesion, no clinical apparent strokes were present in both groups. SAE were more frequent in the OAC arm [on OAC n = 34 (31.8%), off OAC n = 18 (19.4%); P = 0.0460]; bleedings did not differ. Conclusion: Discontinuation of OAC after successful PVI was not found to be associated with an elevated risk of cerebral embolic events compared with continued OAC after a follow-up of 12 months.

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.

Abstract Determinants of thrombotic events remain uncertain in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Our aim was to identify risk factors associated with thromboembolism in patients with at atrial fibrillation on DOACs and to construct and externally validate a predictive model that would provide a validated tool for clinical assessment of thromboembolism. In the development cohort, prediction model was built by logistic regression, the area under the curve (AUC), and Nomogram. External validation and calibration of the model using AUC and Hosmer-Lemeshow test. This national multicenter retrospective study included 3263 patients with atrial fibrillation treated with DOACs. The development cohort consisted of 2390 patients from three centers and the external validation cohort consisted of 873 patients from 13 centers. Multifactorial analysis showed that heavy drinking, hypertension, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), cerebral infarction during hospitalization were independent risk factors for thromboembolism. The Alfalfa-TE risk score was constructed using these four factors (AUC = 0.84), and in the external validation cohort, the model showed good discriminatory power (AUC = 0.74) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P value of 0.649). Based on four factors, we derived and externally validated a predictive model for thromboembolism with DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (Alfalfa-TE risk score). The model has good predictive value and may be an effective tool to help reduce the occurrence of thromboembolism in patients with DOACs.

Objective: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterised by venous thrombosis (VT) or arterial thrombosis (AT) and/or pregnancy morbidity and the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) hold several advantages to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for prevention of thrombosis and we wish to evaluate DOACs compared with VKAs in secondary prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with APS. Methods: We conducted searches of the published literature using relevant data sources (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL), and of trial registers for unpublished data and ongoing trials. We included randomised trials examining individuals >18 years with APS classified according to the criteria valid when the trial was carried out. Randomised controlled trials had to examine any DOAC agent compared with any comparable drug. We tabulated all occurrences of events from all eligible randomised trials. Due to few events, ORs and 95% CIs were calculated using the Peto method. Results: 5 randomised trials comprising 624 patients met the predefined eligibility criteria. The primary outcome measure was new thrombotic events, a composite endpoint of any VT or AT, during the VKA-controlled phase of treatment. According to the I2 inconsistency index, there was evidence of statistical heterogeneity across the studies (I2=60%). Across trials, 29 and 10 thrombotic events were observed in 305 and 319 patients with APS treated with DOAC and VKA, respectively, corresponding to a combined Peto OR of 3.01 (95% CI 1.56 to 5.78, p=0.001). There was a significantly increased risk of AT while treated with DOACs compared with VKA (OR 5.5 (2.5, 12.1) p<0.0001), but no difference in the risk of VT (p=0.87). We found no significant difference in risk of bleeding. Conclusions: DOACs were associated with a significant increase in the risk of a new thrombotic event, especially AT, favouring standard prophylaxis with warfarin.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in comparison to standard-of-care (SOC) anticoagulants in the management and prophylaxis of thromboembolic events in pediatric populations. Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published between January 1, 2015, and December 18, 2022. A meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effect of DOACs on clinically significant endpoints, employing trial-level data with harmonized endpoint definitions. The primary outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The study was registered with INPLASY (2022120065). Results: Three studies encompassing 934 subjects were included. The incidence of VTE was reduced in patients administered DOACs compared to those on SOC anticoagulants (OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.19-0.93], I2 = 0%, P = 0.03). No significant differences were observed between the DOAC and SOC groups in all-cause mortality (OR 0.50 [95% CI 0.07-3.59], I2 = 0%, P = 0.35) or serious adverse events (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.50-1.12], I2 = 0%, P = 0.16). The risk of major bleeding (OR 0.50 [95% CI 0.13-1.87], I2 = 44%, P = 0.30) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 1.23 [95% CI 0.50-3.00], I2 = 0%, P = 0.65) exhibited no significant differences between the groups. Conclusions: DOACs are associated with a reduced risk of VTE in pediatric patients without increasing the risk of bleeding, all-cause mortality, or serious adverse events when compared to SOC anticoagulants. DOACs may be an alternative for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolic events in the pediatrics.