Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with Atrial fibrillation: Propensity weighted nationwide cohort study

381Citations
Citations of this article
427Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To study the effectiveness and safety of the nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin in anticoagulant nave patients with atrial fibrillation. Design Observational nationwide cohort study. Setting Three Danish nationwide databases, August 2011 to October 2015. Participants 61 678 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were nave to oral anticoagulants and had no previous indication for valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study population was distributed according to treatment type: warfarin (n=35 436, 57%), dabigatran 150 mg (n=12 701, 21%), rivaroxaban 20 mg (n=7192, 12%), and apixaban 5 mg (n=6349, 10%). Main outcom e measures Effectiveness outcomes defined a priori were ischaemic stroke; a composite of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism; death; and a composite of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. Safety outcomes were any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding. Results When the analysis was restricted to ischaemic stroke, NOACs were not significantly different from warfarin. During one year follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with lower annual rates of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (3.0% v 3.3%, respectively) compared with warfarin: hazard ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99). The hazard ratios for dabigatran and apixaban (2.8% and 4.9% annually, respectively) were non-significant compared with warfarin. The annual risk of death was significantly lower with apixaban (5.2%) and dabigatran (2.7%) (0.65, 0.56 to 0.75 and 0.63, 0.48 to 0.82, respectively) compared with warfarin (8.5%), but not with rivaroxaban (7.7%). For the combined endpoint of any bleeding, annual rates for apixaban (3.3%) and dabigatran (2.4%) were significantly lower than for warfarin (5.0%) (0.62, 0.51 to 0.74). Warfarin and rivaroxaban had comparable annual bleeding rates (5.3%). Conclusion All NOACs seem to be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in a routine care setting. No significant difference was found between NOACs and warfarin for ischaemic stroke. The risks of death, any bleeding, or major bleeding were significantly lower for apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

References Powered by Scopus

Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

9819Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

8199Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

7753Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

7654Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation

1662Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

1623Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Larsen, T. B., Skjøth, F., Nielsen, P. B., Kjældgaard, J. N., & Lip, G. Y. H. (2016). Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with Atrial fibrillation: Propensity weighted nationwide cohort study. BMJ (Online), 353. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3189

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 140

55%

Researcher 61

24%

Professor / Associate Prof. 38

15%

Lecturer / Post doc 17

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 220

79%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 41

15%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9

3%

Nursing and Health Professions 7

3%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 109

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free