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.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The relative impact of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) on the management of patients with specific embolic events, namely nonhemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic attack (TIA), or peripheral embolism is controversial. The impact of TEE in 234 adult subjects with CVA (n = 141), TIA (n = 59), or peripheral embolism (n = 34) was determined. TEE was diagnostic of a potential embolic source in 61%, 51%, and 62% of patients with CVA, TIA, and peripheral embolism, respectively (P = NS). TEE results changed medication or surgical treatment in 32%, 22%, and 32% of patients with CVA, TIA, and peripheral embolism, respectively (P = NS). Anticoagulation was started on the basis of TEE findings in 11%, 12%, and 18% of patients with CVA, TIA, and peripheral embolism, respectively (P = NS). In 77% of all patients, TEE findings confirmed as appropriate the empiric decision made prior to TEE, to anticoagulate (60%; 12/20) or not to anticoagulate (79%; 168/214). These data demonstrate that TEE findings have a significant and similar impact on the clinical management of patients with various types of potential embolism. Future studies addressing the effectiveness of treatment, guided by TEE findings, in the prevention of recurrent embolic events are needed.