No abstract

BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

BackgroundTherapeutic decisions in atrial fibrillation (AF) are often influenced by assessment of bleeding risk. However, existing bleeding risk scores have limitations.ObjectivesWe sought to develop and validate a novel bleeding risk score using routinely available clinical information to predict major bleeding in a large, community-based AF population.MethodsWe analysed data from Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF), a prospective registry that enrolled incident and prevalent AF patients at 176 US sites. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we identified factors independently associated with major bleeding among patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) over a median follow-up of 2 years (interquartile range = 1.6–2.5). We also created a numerical bedside risk score that included the five most predictive risk factors weighted according to their strength of association with major bleeding. The predictive performance of the full model, the simple five-item score, and two existing risk scores (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile INR, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly, HAS-BLED, and anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation, ATRIA) were then assessed in both the ORBIT-AF cohort and a separate clinical trial population, Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation (ROCKET-AF).ResultsAmong 7411 ORBIT-AF patients taking OAC, the rate of major bleeding was 4.0/100 person-years. The full continuous model (12 variables) and five-factor ORBIT risk score (older age [75+ years], reduced haemoglobin/haematocrit/history of anaemia, bleeding history, insufficient kidney function, and treatment with antiplatelet) both had good ability to identify those who bled vs. not (C-index 0.69 and 0.67, respectively). These scores both had similar discrimination, but markedly better calibration when compared with the HAS-BLED and ATRIA scores in an external validation population from the ROCKET-AF trial.ConclusionsThe five-element ORBIT bleeding risk score had better ability to predict major bleeding in AF patients when compared with HAS-BLED and ATRIA risk scores. The ORBIT risk score can provide a simple, easily remembered tool to support clinical decision making.

Among patients with AF in US clinical practices, TTR on warfarin is suboptimal, and those at highest predicted risks for stroke and bleeding were least likely to be in therapeutic range.

NCT01165710 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).