Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation with Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease.

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) with coronary or peripheral artery disease (CAD or PAD) remain largely unresolved. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis to explore the effect of NOACs compared with warfarin in these populations.We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with CAD or PAD. A random-effect model was selected to pool the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).A total of 7 RCTs were included. In AF patients with CAD, compared with warfarin use, the use of NOACs was associated with reduced risks of stroke/systemic embolism (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.96) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.26-0.63), but NOACs versus warfarin showed similar risks of all-cause death (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86-1.05), cardiovascular death (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80-1.13), stroke (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64-1.00), myocardial infarction (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.83-1.21), and major bleeding (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.65-1.04). Among patients with AF and PAD, NOACs versus warfarin had similar risks for stroke (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.61-1.42), myocardial infarction (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.64-1.90), all-cause death (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.70-1.19), major bleeding (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.70-1.81), and intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.16-1.85).NOACs seem to be at least as effective and safe as warfarin in AF patients with CAD. whereas NOACs versus warfarin have similar efficacy and safety in patients with PAD.