Umeå University's logo

The safety and efficacy of warfarin in a large, unselected cohort of warfarin-treated patients with high quality of care is comparable to that reported for non-vitamin K antagonists. Warfarin is commonly used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, as well as for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism. While reducing risk of thrombotic/embolic incidents, warfarin increases the risk of bleeding. The aim of this study was to elucidate risks of bleeding and thromboembolism for patients on warfarin treatment in a large, unselected cohort with rigorously controlled treatment. This was a retrospective, registry-based study, covering all patients treated with warfarin in the Swedish national anticoagulation register Auricula, which records both primary and specialised care. The study included 77,423 unselected patients with 100,952 treatment periods of warfarin, constituting 217,804 treatment years. Study period was January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2011. Atrial fibrillation was the most common indication (68%). The mean time in therapeutic range of the international normalised ratio (INR) 2.0-3.0 was 76.5%. The annual incidence of I severe bleeding was 2.24% and of thromboembolism 2.65%. The incidence of intracranial bleeding was 0.37% per treatment year in the whole population, and 0.38% among patients with atrial fibrillation. In conclusion, warfarin treatment where patients spend a high proportion of time in the therapeutic range is safe and effective, and will continue to be a valid treatment option in the era of newer oral anticoagulants.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is often recommended as a bridging therapy during temporary interruptions in warfarin treatment, despite lack of evidence. The aim of this study was to see whether we could find benefit from LMWH bridging. We studied all planned interruptions of warfarin within the Swedish anticoagulation register Auricula during 2006 to 2011. Low-molecular-weight heparin bridging was compared to nonbridging (control) after propensity score matching. Complications were identified in national clinical registers for 30 days following warfarin cessation, and defined as all-cause mortality, bleeding (intracranial, gastrointestinal, or other), or thrombosis (ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, venous thromboembolism, or myocardial infarction) that was fatal or required hospital care. Of the 14 556 identified warfarin interruptions, 12 659 with a known medical background had a mean age of 69 years, 61% were males, mean CHADS2 (1 point for each of congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >/=75 years, diabetes, and 2 points for stroke or transient ischemic attack) score was 1.7, and CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.4. The total number of LMWH bridgings was 7021. Major indications for anticoagulation were mechanical heart valve prostheses 4331, atrial fibrillation 1097, and venous thromboembolism 1331. Bridging patients had a higher rate of thrombotic events overall. Total risk of any complication did not differ significantly between bridging (1.5%) and nonbridging (1.2%). Regardless of indication for warfarin treatment, we found no benefit from bridging. The type of procedure prompting bridging was not known, and the likely reason for the observed higher risk of thrombosis with LMWH bridging is that low-risk procedures more often meant no bridging. Results from randomized trials are needed, especially for patients with mechanical heart valves.

Background For patients with atrial fibrillation, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants, or NOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and apixaban) have been proven non-inferior or superior to warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism, and in risk of haemorrhage. In the pivotal NOAC studies, quality of warfarin treatment was poor with mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) 55-65%, compared with >= 70% in Swedish clinical practice. Methods We compared NOACs (as a group) to warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation, studying all 12,694 patients starting NOAC treatment within the Swedish clinical register and dosing system Auricula, from July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014, and matching them to 36,317 patients starting warfarin using propensity scoring. Endpoints were thromboembolic events and major bleedings that were fatal or required hospital care. Outcome data were collected from validated Swedish hospital administrative and clinical registers. Results Mean age was 72.2 vs 72.3 years, proportion of males 58.2% vs 57.0%, and mean follow-up time 299 vs 283 days for NOACs and warfarin. Distribution of NOACs was: dabigatran 40.3%, rivaroxaban 31.2%, and apixaban 28.5%. Mean TTR was 70%. There were no significant differences in rates of thromboembolic/thrombotic events or gastrointestinal bleeding. NOAC treated patients had lower rates of major bleeding overall, hazard ratio 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.92), intracranial bleeding 0.59 (0.40-0.87), haemorrhagic stroke 0.49 (0.28-0.86), and other major bleeding 0.71 (0.57-0.89). Conclusion For patients with atrial fibrillation, NOACs are as effective for stroke prevention as well-managed warfarin but cause fewer major bleedings.

Objective: New oral anticoagulants are non-inferior compared with warfarin regarding stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, with similar or decreased risk of bleeding. However, it is unclear whether high TTR warfarin is as effective and safe as NOACs. Our objective was to investigate efficacy and safety of apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in clinical practice.

Methods: Nationwide retrospective cohort study based on Swedish quality registries. Atrial fibrillation patients initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or warfarin between 2013-01-01 and 2015-12-31 were included. Main outcomes measures were all-cause stroke and systemic embolism, all-cause stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke; major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, other bleeding (fatal or requiring hospital care); all-cause mortality; myocardial infarction.

Results: The study included 64382 patients corresponding to 81176 treatment years. Of these, 37174 patients were instituted on warfarin, 6574 on dabigatran, 8323 on rivaroxaban and 12311 on apixaban. In warfarin treated patients, the time in therapeutic range was 71.4 %. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in risk of stroke or systemic embolism between NOAC and warfarin treated patients. Hazard ratios for major bleeding events were 0.63(95%CI 0.52-0.75) for apixaban, 0.74(0.62-0.87) for dabigatran and 1.06(0.92-1.23) for rivaroxaban, compared with warfarin.

Conclusions: This study showed no difference between apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban compared to high TTR warfarin treatment regarding stroke prevention. However, fewer bleeding events were seen for apixaban and dabigatran, but not for rivaroxaban. Further studies are needed on the comparability of individual NOACs with respect to bleeding risks.