Search

Aims: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have consistently demonstrated superior efficacy in terms of stroke prevention and safety in terms of bleeding over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential use of NOACs in AF patients requiring antiplatelet therapy (APT) has only been assessed in small meta-analyses reporting consistent benefits of NOACs over VKAs. However, the prescription costs of NOACs are higher than those of VKAs. The aim of his study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF also requiring APT with the Dutch healthcare system used as a surrogate of many European healthcare systems., Methods and Results: A decision tree was constructed to analyse the CE of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF with an indication for APT over a horizon of 1 year. Beside the base-case analysis, univariate probabilistic sensitivity and two sensitivity analyses were performed: first, we assessed the impact of VKA home monitoring; second, we varied the NOACs price assuming patent expiration. Use of NOACs instead of VKA is associated with a health gain of 0.0171 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and with an incremental cost of €357, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €20 919, which is almost equal to the generally accepted CE threshold of €20 000 used in the Netherlands. The probability that NOACs are cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per QALY was 50%. Introducing home monitoring increased VKAs costs so much that NOACs became the dominant option (less costly and more effective). Price drops associated to patent expiration of NOACs increased its CE., Conclusion: This analysis suggests that the use of NOACs is a cost-effective alternative of VKAs in patients with AF needing APT. Our findings in the Netherlands healthcare system are probably consistent with other European populations., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as the first-choice therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation because these drugs have several benefits over the vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). It is unknown whether these benefits remain when NOACs have to be combined with aspirin therapy. To assess the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation and concomitant aspirin therapy, we conducted a systematic review and study-based meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials., Methods: A systematic electronic literature search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials for studies including published data of patients ≥18 years of age with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, randomized to either VKAs or NOACs, or receiving aspirin therapy at any time during the study that report all-cause stroke or systemic embolism, vascular death, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage as an outcome. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome were extracted from the individual studies and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis., Results: This study-based meta-analysis was restricted to the subgroups of patients on aspirin therapy (n=21 722) from 4 randomized controlled trials comparing VKAs and NOACs (n=71 681) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In this meta-analysis including patients on mainly low-dose aspirin, NOACs were found to be more effective (outcome of stroke or systemic embolism: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; vascular death: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93) and as safe as VKAs with respect to major bleeding (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). NOACs were safer with respect to the reduction of intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.56)., Conclusions: This study-based meta-analysis shows that it may be both safer and more effective to use NOACs compared with VKAs to treat patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and concomitant aspirin therapy., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

In western countries one in ten of elderly persons (> 65 years old) will develop atrial fibrillation. The main goal in atrial fibrillation therapy is the prophylaxis of thromboembolic complications through anticoagulation according to the individual risk profile (CHA2DS2-Vasc score) of patients and treatment of cardiovascular comorbidities. Symptoms during atrial fibrillation guide the further therapeutic concept. Doctors can deploy a rate control strategy with a heart rate at rest less than 110/min and/or a rhythm control strategy with cardioversion, antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation to alleviate complaints. To what extent maintaining the sinus rhythm improves the prognosis of atrial fibrillation patients is part of ongoing trials.

Catheter ablation provides curative treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on anticoagulation after the procedure are sparse. We investigated real-life antithrombotic treatment after AF ablation and examined its adherence to current recommendations. Eight hundred forty-four patients (age 58 + or - 10 years) underwent AF ablation. Most patients had a CHADS(2) score of 0 (46%) or 1 (45%). Seven-day Holter was performed at three, six and 12 months after ablation. Decision on anticoagulation treatment was made by general practitioners and referring cardiologists in consultation with the patients. At discharge, anticoagulants were prescribed for the vast majority (94-96%) of patients. This percentage remained high at three and six months (80-90%) without differences between stroke risk groups. At 12 months, the use of anticoagulants was mainly influenced by the detection of recurrence; usage exceeded 90% in all stroke risk groups in patients with recurrences. In patients without recurrences, differences between risk groups were significant but small, ranging from 42% (CHADS(2)=0) to 62% (CHADS(2) > or = 2) (p=0.033). In multivariate analysis, the only factor independently associated with oral anticoagulation at 12 months was the detection of recurrences (odds ratio=16.2, p<0.001), whereas the effect of the CHADS(2) score was not significant (p=0.080). The effect of all other examined factors was also not significant. Contrary to current recommendations, anticoagulation after AF ablation is hardly guided by the stroke risk profile and remains high even in low-risk patients. The most important factor influencing the use of anticoagulants is the detection of recurrences during follow-up. This results in possible overtreatment of low-risk patients.

Copyright of Herz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)