Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 10:7:132.
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2020.00132. eCollection 2020.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin-K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review Comparing Benefits and Harms Between Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

Affiliations

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin-K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review Comparing Benefits and Harms Between Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

Nan-Nan Shen et al. Front Cardiovasc Med. .

Abstract

Background: The publication of high-quality observational studies (OSs) has fueled reassessment of the treatment effects of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the elderly with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched (through July 1, 2019) for eligible OSs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported effectiveness outcomes [stroke or systemic embolism (SE)] or safety outcomes [intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality] for DOACs and vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) in elderly AF patients. A random-effects model was applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for OSs and relative risks (RRs) for RCTs. Interaction analyses and the ratio of HR (RHR) were used to assess and compare OSs and RCTs. Results: A total of 32 studies involving 547,419 patients were included. No significant difference in treatment effect estimates was found between 27 OSs and 5 RCTs [P interaction > 0.05 for each and all 95% confidence interval (CI) of RHR crossed 1.0]. Compared with VKAs, DOACs significantly reduced risk for stroke/SE (OSs, HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81-0.94; RCT, RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.67-0.96), and ICH (OSs: 0.47 [0.37-0.57]; RCTs: 0.47 [0.31-0.63]), without increasing risk for GIB (OSs: 1.21 [0.98-1.43]; RCTs: 1.34 [0.91-1.77]), and all-cause mortality (OSs: 1.01 [0.92-1.11]; RCTs: 0.94 [0.87-1.00]). Among OSs, DOACs significantly decreased risk for major bleeding (0.87 [0.77-0.98]) and MI (0.89 [0.79-0.99]). It was found that dabigatran, but not other DOACs, significantly increased risk for GIB (1.48 [1.23-1.72]). Conclusions: DOACs were demonstrated to be more effective and safer than VKAs in elderly AF patients, whereas dabigatran users had a 48% increase in risk for GIB.

Keywords: bleeding; dabigatran; embolism; real-world study; stroke; warfarin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for the selection of eligible studies. DOACs, direct oral anticoagulants; RCTs, randomized controlled trials.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effectiveness and safety of DOACs in OSs and RCTs. RCTs, randomized controlled trials; Oss, observational studies; RR, relative risk; HR, hazard ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval; SE, systemic embolism; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; GIB, gastrointestinal bleeding; MI, myocardial infarction; DOACs, direct oral anticoagulants; VKAs, vitamin-K antagonists; No.s, number of included studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Effectiveness and safety of DOACs by individuals. HR, hazard ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval; SE, systemic embolism; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; GIB, gastrointestinal bleeding; MI, myocardial infarction; DOACs, direct oral anticoagulants; VKAs, vitamin-K antagonists; No. s, number of included studies.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The key subgroup analyses for OSs according to gender, age, and population (A) stroke/SE; (B) ICH; (C) major bleeding; (D) GIB; (E) all-cause mortality; (F) MI. OSs, observational studies; HR, hazard ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval; SE, systemic embolism; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; GIB, gastrointestinal bleeding; MI, myocardial infarction; DOACs, direct oral anticoagulants; VKAs, vitamin-K antagonists; No. s, number of included studies.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lloyd-Jones DM, Wang TJ, Leip EP, Larson MG, Levy D, Vasan RS, et al. . Lifetime risk for development of atrial fibrillation: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. (2004) 110:1042–6. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000140263.20897.42 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lip GYH, Brechin CM, Lane DA. The global burden of atrial fibrillation and stroke: a systematic review of the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in regions outside North America and Europe. Chest. (2012) 142:1489–98. 10.1378/chest.11-2888 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. (2010) 137:263–72. 10.1378/chest.09-1584 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zoni-Berisso M, Lercari F, Carazza T, Domenicucci S. Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: European perspective. Clin Epidemiol. (2014) 6:213–20. 10.2147/CLEP.S47385 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Freedman B, Potpara TS, Lip GY. Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Lancet. (2016) 388:806–17. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31257-0 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources