Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Research Articles

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Isolated Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia or Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia With Thrombosis.

No existing studies compare oral anticoagulants to treat heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with or without thrombosis (HIT/HITT). This retrospective study evaluated thrombotic and bleeding outcomes in adults treated for HIT/HITT with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) or warfarin between 2012 and 2023 within the Ochsner Health System. Patients with mechanical heart valves, valvular atrial fibrillation, antiphospholipid syndrome, active malignancy, or venous thromboembolism (VTE) within the previous 6 months were excluded. The primary outcome was a composite of new or progressive VTE or arterial thromboembolism. Secondary outcomes included major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding, duration of hospitalization, time to platelet recovery, and incidence of skin necrosis, gangrene, and amputation. Forty-nine patients receiving a DOAC and 30 patients receiving warfarin were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. There were non-statistically significant increased rates of both the primary outcome (8.9% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.65) and the composite bleeding outcome (32.7% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.37) in the DOAC cohort. Larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Cirrhosis.

Comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin's efficacy and safety in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and liver cirrhosis (LC). Evidence of the pharmacodynamics of DOACs is limited in patients with AF and LC. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the largest hospital system in Taiwan, involving patients with AF and LC for the years 2012 to 2021. Hazards of thromboembolic events (ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, and systemic embolism), intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality were investigated with a new-user, active comparator design. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance potential confounders between treatment groups. In total, 478 DOAC users and 247 warfarin users were included. DOACs and warfarin demonstrated similar trends in preventing thromboembolic events, namely ischemic stroke [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.05 (95% CI: 0.42-2.61)], transient ischemic attack [aHR, 1.36 (95% CI: 0.18-10.31)], and systemic embolism [aHR, 0.49 (95% CI: 0.14-1.70)]. DOAC use was associated with a similar risk of intracranial hemorrhage [aHR, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.26-1.59)] and gastrointestinal bleeding [aHR, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.39-1.03)], a decreased risk of major bleeding [aHR, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.42-0.99)], and a reduction in mortality [aHR, 0.73 (95% CI: 0.54-0.99)]. DOAC users exhibited a significant reduction in major bleeding risk in patients with Child-Pugh class A (aHR, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.33-0.70). DOACs showed potential safety advantages over warfarin for patients with nonvalvular AF and LC, particularly in reducing major bleeding risk in those with Child-Pugh class A.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent cardiac arrhythmia. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), with superior efficacy and safety, have emerged as a promising alternative to warfarin. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of DOACs and warfarin in patients with AF and chronic liver disease (CLD). A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing the effectiveness of DOACs and warfarin in patients diagnosed with AF and CLD. Subsequent analyses were carried out using the random-effects model. This meta-analysis included eight studies involving 20,684 participants; baseline characteristics indicated a prevalent male presence (56.7%), with an average age of 61.63 ± 9 years. Primary outcomes demonstrated that DOACs were associated with significantly reduced all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.95; I 2 = 84%; P = .02) and ischemic stroke risk (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.86; I 2 = 61%; P = .004). Secondary outcomes revealed a significantly reduced risk of major bleeding with DOACs compared to warfarin, while gastrointestinal bleeding showed a non-significant decrease. Intracranial hemorrhage risk was significantly lower with DOACs compared to warfarin. DOACs demonstrate superior safety and efficacy compared to warfarin, evidenced by reduced rates of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, severe bleeding, and cerebral hemorrhage. Further randomized controlled trials are essential to enhance the evidence base for DOACs across diverse patient populations.

Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism using Real-World Data: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown comparable efficacy and a superior safety profile in clinical trials for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, further study is needed to assess DOACs' effectiveness and safety compared to warfarin in a real-world context. Thus, this meta-analysis compares the effectiveness and safety of warfarin and DOACs in patients with VTE. A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and EMBASE was conducted from inception until June 2024. We examined observational studies that compared safety and effectiveness between DOACs and warfarin when used in treating VTE and reported adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and/or odds ratios (ORs) for recurrent VTE, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and death from any cause. We then estimated the pooled effect using the random-effects model for meta-analysis. A total of 25 studies were included in the current meta-analysis. DOAC therapy was associated with significantly lower risks of recurrent VTE (HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.85), major bleeding (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.83), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.88), and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.83) compared to warfarin. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in all-cause mortality between the two groups (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83-1.10). This meta-analysis found that DOACs are associated with a significant reduction in VTE recurrence in addition to the known favorable safety profile when compared to warfarin.

CO5 Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: A Target Trial Emulation From SEER-Medicare Database

CO5 Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: A Target Trial Emulation From SEER-Medicare Database

Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: A Target Trial Emulation from SEER-Medicare Database

Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer: A Target Trial Emulation from SEER-Medicare Database

OR3-4 | Intermediate Survival of Patients With Pre-Existing or New Onset Atrial Fibrillation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Treated With Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin

OR3-4 | Intermediate Survival of Patients With Pre-Existing or New Onset Atrial Fibrillation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Treated With Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Saudi Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) significantly heightens stroke risk, which can be mitigated through anticoagulation therapy. Although warfarin was traditionally employed for this purpose, the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is on the rise. This retrospective study, which spanned from June 2016 to January 2018, focused on adult patients diagnosed with AF. Their treatments, either via warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran), were evaluated. Data analysis was done using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS, version 21; IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY). This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus warfarin in preventing thromboembolic complications among Saudi patients with AF. A total of 396 patients with AF, averaging 66 ± 14 years of age, were part of the study. Among them, there were slightly more female patients (205 or 51.8%). The majority of patients (223 or 56.3%) were treated with a DOAC, while the rest (173 or 43.7%) received warfarin. Furthermore, 93 patients (23.5%) were taking anti-platelet drugs. Statistically, the rate of ischemic stroke was significantly higher among patients treated with DOACs than with warfarin (p=0.005), but bleeding rates were similar in both groups. Specifically, the DOACs apixaban and rivaroxaban showed a significant association with the occurrence of stroke when compared to warfarin (p=0.012 and p=007, respectively). Overall, both DOACs and warfarin presented similar results regarding hemorrhagic complications when treating AF patients. However, the DOACs apixaban and rivaroxaban displayed higher risks of ischemic stroke compared to warfarin.

Abstract TMP62: The Delayed Seizure CVT Score Predicts Delayed Seizure After Cerebral Venous Thrombosis - A Secondary Analysis of ACTION-CVT

Introduction: Seizures are a common initial manifestation of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). We sought to establish predictive factors for delayed seizures to stratify risk and guide clinical management. Methods: We analyzed data from the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (ACTION-CVT) study of consecutive patients with CVT from 2015 - 2020. The primary outcome was delayed seizure(s), occurring after 7 days from CVT diagnosis. Patients with outcome data for late seizures and follow-up of at least 7 days from time of diagnosis were included. Univariate analysis was performed using Chi-square, rank-sum, and t-tests. Variables with P-value < 0.2 were included in the backward stepwise regression model with 0.2 as cutoff, based on which we constructed the Delayed Seizure CVT (Delayed Seizures after CVT) score. Results: We identified 599 patients who met inclusion criteria: mean age 44.9(± 16.6) years, 62.9% female. Delayed seizures occurred in 37 (6.1%) patients. Risk factors included intracranial hemorrhage (OR 2.0 95% CI 0.7-5.74 p=0.196), alcohol abuse (OR 3.88 95% CI 1.45-10.38 p=0.007), focal neurologic deficit (OR 2.05 95% CI 0.95-4.44 p=0.067), seizure on presentation (OR 2.88 95% CI 1.32-6.29 p=0.008), hormonal birth control (OR 2.38 95% CI 1.06-5.37 p=0.0036), endovascular therapy (OR 2.86 95% CI 1.16-7.07 p=0.023) and decompressive hemicraniectomy (OR 3.357 95% CI 1.02-10.99 p=0.046), respectively. Based on coefficients of these variables, a 7-item score was created with acceptable performance for seizure prediction (AUC 0.796, 95% CI 0.72 - 0.86) (Table 1). Conclusions: Delayed seizure CVT score is a clinical tool to identify risk of delayed seizure in CVT. Further research is needed to validate these findings in an external cohort.

Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation in End-Stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are commonly encountered, with ESRD itself serving as a well-established risk factor for AF.1 The 2018 AF guidelines have recommended apixaban across all the spectrums of renal impairment, including patients on hemodialysis (HD), and the 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society updated guidelines have suggested careful consideration of reduced dose of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with ESRD.2,3 The current data on the safety and efficacy of warfarin versus DOACs in patients with AF with ESRD and HD is variable. This study aimed to perform a study-level meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of warfarin and DOACs in patients with AF who require dialysis.

Dementia Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated superior efficacy in preventing stroke and death compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their influence on dementia risk remains unclear. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative risks of dementia in DOAC vs warfarin in patients with AF. MethodsAn electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve studies reporting comparisons of dementia incidence between patients treated with DOACs and warfarin for AF. HRs and 95% CI were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to identify prognostic baseline variables. Network meta-analysis was performed to determine dementia risk between individual DOACs and warfarin. ResultsTen studies (n = 342,624) were retrieved. DOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing dementia compared with warfarin (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; P = 0.017; I2 = 75%); significance was also seen in Asian patients (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.86) but not non-Asian patients. Subgroup analyses of propensity score–matched studies and patients aged 65-75 years showed similar significance, but not for patients aged ≥75 years. Meta-regression found that a lower mean age corresponded to significantly greater favoring of DOAC over warfarin. Network meta-analysis found significant reductions in dementia risk over warfarin for rivaroxaban (HR: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.763-0.955), apixaban (HR: 0.881; 95% CI: 0.778-0.997), and dabigatran (HR: 0.871; 95% CI: 0.770-0.987); the highest-ranked treatment based on P scores was edoxaban. ConclusionsThe use of DOAC in AF significantly reduces dementia risk compared with warfarin, particularly in Asian patients. The possible reversal of this effect with increasing age merits further randomized trials with long-term follow-up. (Dementia Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; CRD42022365634)

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation With Low Stroke Risk

Pivotal trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) against warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) predominantly involved patients with high stroke risk. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOAC versus warfarin in patients with low stroke risk. An online literature search was conducted to retrieve studies comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with DOAC versus warfarin for AF, reporting outcomes for patients at low or minimal risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc scores ranging from 0 to 2 or CHADS2 scores ranging from 0 to 1). The primary outcome was the occurrence of stroke or systemic embolism. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios for all outcomes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. A network meta-analysis of individual DOACs versus warfarin was also conducted. In total, 11 studies (132,980 patients) were included. DOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio0.85, 95% confidence interval0.75 to 0.96, p=0.008, I2=0%), major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality compared with warfarin. This benefit persisted even when study arms which had CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 2 were excluded. When restricted to 3 studies investigating only patients with a single nongender-related stroke risk factor, significant benefit was seen only for the outcome of major bleeding. In the network meta-analysis, only dabigatran was superior to warfarin for all 4 outcomes. In conclusion, DOACs should be the standard of care in low-risk patients with AF who require anticoagulation. In particular, dabigatran appears to have the best balance of stroke prevention and reduction in major bleeding.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Among Adults With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation.

While clinical guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) over warfarin to treat isolated nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, guidelines are silent regarding nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treatment among individuals with cancer, reflecting the paucity of evidence in this setting. We quantified relative risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding (primary outcomes), and all-cause and cardiovascular death (secondary outcomes) among older individuals with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation comparing DOACs and warfarin. This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and linked US Medicare data from 2010 through 2016, and included individuals diagnosed with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who newly initiated DOAC or warfarin. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to control confounding. We used competing risk regression for primary outcomes and cardiovascular death, and Cox proportional hazard regression for all-cause death. Among 7675 individuals included in the cohort, 4244 (55.3%) received DOACs and 3431 (44.7%) warfarin. In the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there was no statistically significant difference among DOAC and warfarin users in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (1.24 versus 1.19 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 1.41 [95% CI, 0.92-2.14]), major bleeding (3.08 versus 4.49 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17]), and cardiovascular death (1.88 versus 3.14 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI, 0.59-0.1.13]). DOAC users had significantly lower risk of all-cause death (7.09 versus 13.3 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69-0.94]) compared to warfarin users. Older adults with cancer and atrial fibrillation exposed to DOACs had similar risks of stroke and systemic embolism and major bleeding as those exposed to warfarin. Relative to warfarin, DOAC use was associated with a similar risk of cardiovascular death and a lower risk of all-cause death.

Correction: Risk for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding With Apixaban Compared With Rivaroxaban and Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Correction: Risk for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding With Apixaban Compared With Rivaroxaban <i>and</i> Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Extreme Obesity

Background: Limited clinical data exists regarding use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in extreme obesity, specifically those ≥140 kg or having a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 50 kg/m2. Objective: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs in extreme obesity. Patients/Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single center of patients aged 18-89 years and weight ≥140 kg or BMI ≥50 kg/m2 receiving warfarin or DOAC therapy. Patients were followed for 1 year from prescribing/study inclusion. The primary outcome was the difference in rates of any bleed (composite of major, nonmajor clinically relevant, or minor bleeding events as defined by International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria) between groups. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the composite primary outcome and effectiveness in preventing thrombotic events within 12 months. Post-hoc multivariate analysis evaluated potential predictors of bleeding events within overall patient population. Results: Two-hundred eighty-five patients were included, 80 and 205 in the DOAC and warfarin groups, respectively. Rates of any documented bleeding event were comparable in DOAC and warfarin groups (17.5% vs 17.1%, P > .05). No significant difference in rates of minor (P = .067), nonmajor clinically relevant (P = .825), and major (P = 1) bleeding events were observed. Two thrombotic events occurred in the warfarin group compared to none in the DOAC group. Increasing weight was associated with bleeding events in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: This data did not demonstrate a difference in safety or efficacy outcomes between DOACs and warfarin when utilized in patients with extreme obesity.

The Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Among Older Individuals With Acute Venous Thromboembolism and CKD: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis.1 Although landmark trials of patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are noninferior to vitamin K antagonists with regard to preventing VTE recurrence and the risk of bleeding events, these trials enrolled relatively few patients with CKD.2 Therefore, less information exists on the potential safety concerns associated with VTE treatment strategies in this population.

Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Following WATCHMAN in High-Risk Patients.

In the pivotal WATCHMAN trials, warfarin was used exclusively for postprocedural anticoagulation following left atrial appendage closure. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN. This was a retrospective study of 318 patients who underwent the WATCHMAN procedure in a tertiary referral center (June 2016-September 2020). We compared the outcomes of patients who were discharged on DOACs versus warfarin after the WATCHMAN procedure. The primary outcome was the composite of any bleeding, thromboembolism, or cardiovascular death through 7​days and 45​days after the procedure. The final analysis included 301 patients, of whom 82.4% (248/301) were discharged on DOACs and 17.6% (53/301) were discharged on warfarin. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.9​±​1.6 and 2.9​±​0.9, respectively. The primary composite outcome was similar between the DOAC and warfarin groups through 7​days (3.2% vs 5.6%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-3.17; P​=​.59) and 45 days after procedure (10.1% vs 11.3%; adjusted OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.41-3.45; P​=​.76). Major bleeding (5.2% vs 9.5%; P​=​.34) and all-cause readmission (12.5% vs 16.9%; P​=​.85) at 45​days were comparable between the DOAC and warfarin groups. The overall incidence of device-related thrombus and significant peri-device flow at 45​days were low (<0.5%). In high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, the primary composite outcome of any bleeding, thromboembolism, or cardiovascular death through 7​days and 45​days following WATCHMAN implantation was similar in patients receiving DOACs versus warfarin.

Correction to: Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex.

Correction to: Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Meta-analyses using individual patient data offer substantial advantages over study-level data. We used individual patient data from the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database, which includes all patients randomized in the 4 pivotal trials of DOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), to perform network meta-analyses using a stratified Cox model with random effects comparing standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin. Hazard ratios (HRs [95% CIs]) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes. Covariate-by-treatment interaction was estimated for categorical covariates and for age as a continuous covariate, stratified by sex. A total of 71 683 patients were included (29 362 on standard-dose DOAC, 13 049 on lower-dose DOAC, and 29 272 on warfarin). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOACs were associated with a significantly lower hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (883/29 312 [3.01%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.89]), death (2276/29 312 [7.76%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.97]), and intracranial bleeding (184/29 270 [0.63%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.37-0.56]), but no statistically different hazard of major bleeding (1479/29 270 [5.05%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.01]), whereas lower-dose DOACs were associated with no statistically different hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (531/13 049 [3.96%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.95-1.19]) but a lower hazard of intracranial bleeding (55/12 985 [0.42%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.37]), death (1082/13 049 [8.29%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and major bleeding (564/12 985 [4.34%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]). Treatment effects for standard- and lower-dose DOACs versus warfarin were consistent across age and sex for stroke or systemic embolism and death, whereas standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with no history of vitamin K antagonist use (P=0.01) and lower creatinine clearance (P=0.09). For major bleeding, standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with lower body weight (P=0.02). In the continuous covariate analysis, younger patients derived greater benefits from standard-dose (interaction P=0.02) and lower-dose DOACs (interaction P=0.01) versus warfarin. Compared with warfarin, DOACs have more favorable efficacy and safety profiles among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension (CTEPH AC Registry): A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study in Japan

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension (CTEPH AC Registry): A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study in Japan