PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Introduction: Non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are known to have advantages over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, more than half of patients are still treated with VKAs. The absence of direct comparisons amongst NOACs and the insufficient evidence in some clinical situations could explain, at least in part, this predominance of VKAs. The aims of our study were: 1) to analyze the opinion of an expert panel on the role of NOACs in different clinical scenarios; 2) to elaborate specific consensus recommendations for the management of NOACs for each one of these situations.Patients and methods: An online survey was created covering distinct aspects of the use of oral anticoagulants in various clinical settings. A two-round modified Delphi approach was used.Results: Forty-eight experts responded to the survey. Consensus was reached on 58% (48/83) of the items. The panelists concluded that the term non-valvular AF should be avoided. In most clinical settings NOACs were preferred over VKAs. Once daily NOACs were preferred in elderly patients to improve therapeutic compliance and, in those over the age of 85, edoxaban could be the best choice. Edoxaban and apixaban were the favorites for patients with AF and moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the case of patients on triple antithrombotic therapy due to AF and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) the lowest effective NOAC dose should be used.Conclusion: Our study emphasizes that there are several clinical circumstances in patients with AF requiring complex decisions about anticoagulation treatment and offers some recommendations based on the consensus reached by an expert panel.
摘要：
暂无翻译
