UNASSIGNED: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with stroke. Major changes to AF management recommendations in 2016-2018 advised that: 1. Stroke risk be estimated using the CHA2DS2-VA score; 2. Antiplatelet agents (APAs) do not effectively mitigate stroke risk; 3. Anticoagulation is prioritised above bleeding risk among high-risk patients; and 4. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are used as first-line anticoagulants.
UNASSIGNED: To examine trends in stroke risk management among high-risk patients with non-valvular AF in Australia between 2011-2019.
UNASSIGNED: De-identified data of patients were obtained from 164 separate general practices. Data included information on patient demographics, diagnoses, health risk factors and recent prescriptions. Patients with a diagnosis of non-valvular AF were identified and stroke risk was calculated by CHA2DS2-VA score. High risk patients (i.e. CHA2DS2-VA ≥ 2) were categorised as being managed by oral anticoagulants (OACs, i.e., warfarin or NOACs), APAs only, or neither (i.e., no OACs or APAs) and time trends in prescribing were examined. Multivariate analyses examined the characteristics of patients receiving the guideline recommended OAC management.
UNASSIGNED: Data were available for 337,964 patients; 8696 (2.6 %) had AF. Most patients with AF (85.8 %, n = 7116) had high stroke risk. The proportion of high-risk patients managed on OACs increased from 56.7 % in 2011 to 73.7 % in 2019, while the proportion prescribed APAs declined from 31.1 % to 14.0 %. Those receiving neither treatment remained steady (around 12 %). Overall, 26.3 % of patients were inadequately anticoagulated at the end of the study period. There were no age or gender differences in receiving the guideline-recommended therapy, and patients with comorbidities associated with increased stroke risk were more likely to receive OAC therapy.
UNASSIGNED: Stroke risk management among patients with AF has improved between 2011-2019, however there is still scope for further gains as many high-risk patients remain inadequately anticoagulated. Better stroke risk assessment by clinicians coupled with addressing practitioner concerns about bleeding risk may improve management of high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous stroke is inconclusive, especially in patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH). We aim to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with a history of stroke.
METHODS: We searched studies published up to December 10, 2022, on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies on adults with AF and previous ischaemic stroke (IS) or IrCH receiving either NOACs or warfarin and capturing outcome events (thromboembolic events, ICrH, and all-cause mortality) were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including 19,489 patients with previous IS) and fifteen observational studies (including 132,575 patients with previous IS and 13,068 patients with previous ICrH) were included. RCT data showed that compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96), ICrH (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). In analysing observational studies, similar results were retrieved. Moreover, patients with previous ICrH had a lower OR on thromboembolic events than those with IS (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95 vs. OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93) in the comparison between NOACs and warfarin.
CONCLUSIONS: Observational data showed that in AF patients with previous stroke, NOACs showed better clinical performance compared to warfarin and the benefits of NOACs were more pronounced in patients with previous IrCH versus those with IS. RCT data also showed NOACs are superior to warfarin. However, current RCTs only included AF patients who survived an IS, and further large RCTs focused on patients with previous ICrH are warranted.

UNASSIGNED: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are closely related. These diseases share common risk factors and are associated with increased risk of thromboembolic events. Choosing the appropriate oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) in patients with AF and CKD is challenging. Deterioration of renal function is common in patients with AF treated with OACs, although not all OACs affect the kidneys equally.
UNASSIGNED: In this review, we aim to summarize the current knowledge of the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with AF and CKD, focusing on the impact of specific OAC agents on renal function.
UNASSIGNED: Consideration of OAC use is mandatory in patients with AF and CKD who are at increased risk of stroke or systemic embolism. Available evidence suggests that the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is associated with slower deterioration of renal function in comparison to Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Hence, a NOAC should be used in preference to VKAs in all NOAC-eligible patients with AF and CKD. Regarding patients with end-stage renal dysfunction and those on dialysis or renal replacement therapy, the use of NOAC should be considered in line with locally relevant formal recommendations.

For patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), arrythmias such as atrial fibrillation (AF) can be detected and actions taken to rapidly assess and initiate treatment where appropriate. Actions include timely initiation of anticoagulation, review of blood pressure, and optimization of cholesterol/lipids to prevent unfavorable outcomes, such as stroke and other cardiovascular complications. Delays to initiating anticoagulation can have devastating consequences. We sought to implement a virtual clinic, where a pharmacist reviews patient referrals from a CIED clinic after detecting AF from the CIED. Anticoagulation choice is determined by patient-specific factors, and a shared patient-provider decision to start oral anticoagulation is made. In addition, blood pressure readings and medications are assessed with lipid-lowering therapies for optimization. A total of 315 patients have been admitted through this clinic and anticoagulated over a two-year span; in addition, 322 successful interventions were made for optimization of cardiac therapy. Rapid initiation of anticoagulation within five days of referral was likely to have reduced unfavorable outcomes, such as stroke and other cardiovascular optimizations, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) was found to be non-inferior to warfarin. In non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), there is still a scarcity of data comparing LAAO versus non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Our purpose was to compare the clinical benefits between LAAO and NOACs in non-valvular AF patients. The patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome principles were used to develop the research question in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Literature searches were conducted in online scientific databases such as ProQuest, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. All important information was extracted. The random-effect model was applied to estimate all pooled effects. The Mantel-Haenszel statistical method was used to determine the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 4411 participants from 5 studies were involved. LAAO significantly decreased the cardiovascular mortality risk compared to NOACs (RR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.75; p <0.01). Major bleeding risk in the LAAO group was significantly lower than in the NOACs group (RR = 0.66; RR = 0.53 to 0.82; p <0.01). A significantly lower risk of major bleeding or non-major bleeding in the patients receiving LAAO than NOACs was also observed in this meta-analysis (RR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.81; p <0.01). LAAO was superior to the NOACs in reducing cardiovascular mortality, major bleeding, and major or non-major bleeding risks in non-valvular AF patients. In high-risk thromboembolism and bleeding patients, LAAO can be considered first as a long-term treatment strategy.

Chronic kidney disease is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and is associated with heightened risks of stroke/systemic embolisation and bleeding. In this review we outline the evidence for AF stroke prevention in kidney disease, identify current knowledge gaps, and give recommendations for anticoagulation at various stages of chronic kidney disease. Overall, anticoagulation is underused. Warfarin use becomes increasingly difficult with advancing kidney disease, with difficulty maintaining international normalised ratio (INR) in therapeutic range, increased risk of intracranial and fatal bleeding compared to non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and high rates of discontinuation. Similarly, the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran is not recommended as it is predominantly renally excreted with consequent increased plasma levels and bleeding risk with advanced kidney disease. The Factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban have less renal excretion (25-35%), modest increases in plasma levels with advancing kidney disease, and are the preferred first line choice for anticoagulation in moderate kidney disease based on strong evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs). In severe kidney disease there is a paucity of RCT data, but extrapolation of the pharmacokinetic and RCT data for moderate kidney disease, and observational studies, support the considered use of dose-adjusted Factor Xa inhibitors unless the bleeding risk is prohibitive. In Australia, apixaban is approved for creatinine clearance down to 25 mL/min, and rivaroxaban down to 15 mL/min. For end-stage kidney disease warfarin is the only agent approved, but we recommend against anticoagulation (except in selected cases) due to high bleeding risk, multiple co-morbidities, and questionable benefit.

UNASSIGNED: Intraocular bleeding is a devastating adverse event for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving anticoagulant therapy. It is unknown whether non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with warfarin can reduce the risk of intraocular bleeding in patients with AF. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of NOACs vs. warfarin on intraocular bleeding in the AF population.
UNASSIGNED: Studies were systematically searched from the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases until April 2022. We included studies if they enrolled patients with AF and compared the intraocular bleeding risk between NOACs and warfarin and if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational cohort studies. The random-effects model was chosen to evaluate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 193,980 patients with AF from 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 cohort study were included. The incidence of intraocular bleeding among AF patients treated with warfarin and NOACs was 0.87% (n = 501/57346) and 0.61% (n = 836/136634), respectively. In the pooled analysis with the random-effects model, the use of NOACs was not significantly associated with the risk of intraocular bleeding (OR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.52-1.04, P = 0.08) compared with warfarin use. In addition, the sensitivity analysis with the fixed-effects model suggested that NOAC users had a lower incidence of intraocular bleeding than patients with warfarin (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.51-0.63, P < 0.00001).
UNASSIGNED: Our current meta-analysis suggested that the use of NOACs had no increase in the incidence of intraocular bleeding compared with warfarin use in patients with AF. Whether the use of NOACs is superior to warfarin needs more research to confirm.

The balance between efficacy and harm remains a challenge in the adoption of non-vitamin K antagonist direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for secondary atherosclerotic disease prevention. We provide a comprehensive review of the evidence for and against the addition of DOACs to the current management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including stable coronary artery disease (CAD), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), peripheral artery disease (PAD), and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).
The DOAC class exerts pleiotropic effects on atherosclerotic progression through coagulation and inflammatory pathways. In ACS, low-dose DOAC provides no added efficacy in the setting of dual antiplatelet therapy; however, full-dose DOAC increases bleeding. Efficacy-safety profile favor use of low-dose rivaroxaban in select stable CAD or PAD patients. Atrial fibrillation patients undergoing PCI resort to dual therapy with DOAC due to prohibitory bleeding with triple anti-thrombotic therapy. Evidence favors DOAC use in CAD and PAD; however, careful individual considerations must be undertaken.

Rheumatic valve disease is present in 0.4 % of the word population, mainly in lowincome countries. Rheumatic mitral stenosis affects more women and between 40 to 75 % of patients may have atrial fibrillation (AF), more frequently in upper-middle income countries. This rhythm disturbance is due to increased atrial pressure, chronic inflammation, fibrosis, and left atrial enlargement. There is also an increase in the prevalence of AF with age in patients with mitral stenosis. The risk of stroke is 4 % per year. Success rates for cardioversion, Cox-Maze procedure, and catheter ablation are low. Therefore, anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonist is mandatory for Evaluated Heart valves, Rheumatic or Artificial (EHRA) classification type 1. However, this anticoagulation is used by less than 80 % of those eligible and less than 30 % have the international normalized ratio in the therapeutic range. The safety and efficacy of using rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor anticoagulant, were demonstrated in the RIVER trial with a sample of 1005 patients with AF and bioprosthetic mitral valve. The indication for valve replacement, that is, if severe mitral stenosis or severe mitral regurgitation, was not specified. A randomized, open-label study (DAVID-MS) is underway to compare the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and warfarin therapy for stroke prevention in patients with AF and moderate or severe mitral stenosis. Thus, the applicability of the use of direct anticoagulants in patients with AF and mitral stenosis and also in those undergoing mitral bioprostheses surgery will be the subject of further studies. The findings may explain if specific atrial changes of mitral stenosis even after the valve replacement will influence thromboembolic events with direct anticoagulants.

UNASSIGNED: Despite the advances in oral anticoagulation with NOACs, careful patient and dose selection is required with NOAC therapy. Our study aimed to assess treatment patterns of NOACs in AF along with patients\' continuity to NOAC treatments in first year, and their knowledge level of AF and NOAC treatment.
UNASSIGNED: ASPECT-NOAC was designed as an observational, prospective, and multicenter study. AF patients who were prescribed NOACs within last four months were recruited from 34 outpatient cardiology clinics covering all geographic regions of Turkey. Baseline data were collected initially whereas patient awareness was evaluated at 3 to 4 weeks. Final study visit was performed at 12 months.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 991 patients were included to the study. Mean ± standard deviation of age was 69.4 ± 10.2 years and 53.0% of patients were female. Mean duration from AF diagnosis was 24.9 ± 50.9 months. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 3.1 ± 1.5 and 1.6 ± 1.1, respectively. AF disease and NOAC treatment knowledge levels were found to be 48.9 ± 23.1% and 73.0 ± 19.3%, respectively. Among reduced dose users 71.4% of patients were prescribed inappropriate reduced doses. Through the study follow-up, 32 patients (3.2%) deceased and NOAC therapy was discontinued in 74 patients (8.7%).
UNASSIGNED: AF patients who recently started NOAC treatment in Turkey were found to have variable knowledge about their disease and anticoagulation treatment. It was observed that most of the patients continued the NOAC treatment throughout the study. Reduced dosing of NOACs was common, which was associated with higher baseline risk for bleeding as well as stroke.