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
. 2021 Jan-Dec:27:10760296211044722.
doi: 10.1177/10760296211044722.

The Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacy Between Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Hongxia Li  1 , Lei Zhang  2 , Ming Xia  3 , Chi Zhang  1 , Tingbo Jiang  1
Affiliations

The Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacy Between Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Hongxia Li et al. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2021 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

Background: Novel oral anticoagulants and warfarin are widely used for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. The anticoagulation status of patients receiving warfarin or rivaroxaban has been studied. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of dabigatran and warfarin on preventing thrombin generation (TG).

Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 237 nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) subjects treated with 110 mg dabigatran etexilate twice daily and 224 NVAF patients received adjusted-dose warfarin (international normalized ratio [INR] of 2 to 3)). Coagulation assays, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (F1+2), calibrated automated thrombogram, and thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT) were detected at the steady state.

Results: Activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), antithrombin III activity, fibrinogen, and lag time showed no difference between the two groups. Compared to the dabigatran group, prothrombin time and INR values were higher in the warfarin group (all P < .001). Thrombin time, endogenous thrombin potential, peak TG (Cmax), F1+2, and TAT were lower in the warfarin group. The inhibition of TG was still stronger in the warfarin group when the patients were divided into subgroups.

Conclusion: Conventional coagulation assays are suboptimal for assessing the coagulation status of dabigatran. TG could be used as supplementary assays to evaluate the anticoagulation effect of oral anticoagulants. Our results suggest that warfarin may inhibit TG more aggressively than dabigatran in patients regardless of age and kidney function.

Keywords: atrial fibrillation; prothrombin fragment 1  +  2; thrombin generation; thrombin-antithrombin complex.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The values of PT, INR, TT, APTT, fibrinogen, and ATIII were compared between dabigatran and warfarin. The values are presented as mean  ±  SD. Abbreviations: APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; ATIII, antithrombin III; INR, international normalized ratio; PT, prothrombin time; SD, standard deviation; TT, thrombin time.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
The values of lag time, ETP, peak TG (Cmax), prothrombin fragment 1  +  2 (F1+2), and TAT were compared between dabigatran and warfarin. The values are presented as mean  ±  SD. Abbreviations: ETP, endogenous thrombin potential; SD, standard deviation; TAT, thrombin–antithrombin complex; TG, thrombin generation.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Comparisons of ETP, peak TG (Cmax), fragment 1  +  2 (F1+2) and TAT between dabigatran and warfarin according to age. The values are presented as mean  ±  SD. Abbreviations: ETP, endogenous thrombin potential; SD, standard deviation; TAT, thrombin–antithrombin complex; TG, thrombin generation.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Comparisons of ETP, peak TG (Cmax), fragment 1  +  2 (F1+2), and TAT between dabigatran and warfarin according to renal function. The values are presented as mean  ±  SD. Abbreviations: ETP, endogenous thrombin potential; SD, standard deviation; TAT, thrombin–antithrombin complex; TG, thrombin generation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the european association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373-498. - PubMed
    1. Cheung CC, Nattel S, Macle L, Andrade JG. Atrial fibrillation management in 2021: an updated comparison of the current CCS/CHRS, ESC, and AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines. Can J Cardiol. 2021;(21):313-315. - PubMed
    1. Sridharan K, Al Banna R, Qader AM, Husain A. Evaluation of inter-patient variability in the pharmacodynamic indices of warfarin. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2020;18(11):835-840. - PubMed
    1. Zhu W, Ye Z, Chen S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients. Stroke: STROKEAHA120031007. 2021.
    1. Douxfils J, Ageno W, Samama CM, et al. Laboratory testing in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a practical guide for clinicians. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(2):209-219. - PubMed