Primary prevention of arterial thromboembolism in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in primary care: randomised controlled trial comparing two intensities of coumarin with aspirin.

Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands.
BMJ Clinical Research (Impact Factor: 14.09). 11/1999; 319(7215):958-64. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7215.958
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To investigate the effectiveness of aspirin and coumarin in preventing thromboembolism in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in general practice.
Randomised controlled trial.
729 patients aged >/=60 years with atrial fibrillation, recruited in general practice, who had no established indication for coumarin. Mean age was 75 years and mean follow up 2. 7 years.
Primary care in the Netherlands.
Patients eligible for standard intensity coumarin (international normalised ratio 2.5-3.5) were randomly assigned to standard anticoagulation, very low intensity coumarin (international normalised ratio 1.1-1.6), or aspirin (150 mg/day) (stratum 1). Patients ineligible for standard anticoagulation were randomly assigned to low anticoagulation or aspirin (stratum 2).
Stroke, systemic embolism, major haemorrhage, and vascular death.
108 primary events occurred (annual event rate 5.5%), including 13 major haemorrhages (0.7% a year). The hazard ratio was 0.91 (0.61 to 1.36) for low anticoagulation versus aspirin and 0.78 (0.34 to 1.81) for standard anticoagulation versus aspirin. Non-vascular death was less common in the low anticoagulation group than in the aspirin group (0.41, 0.20 to 0.82). There was no significant difference between the treatment groups in bleeding incidence. High systolic and low diastolic blood pressure and age were independent prognostic factors.
In a general practice population (without established indications for coumarin) neither low nor standard intensity anticoagulation is better than aspirin in preventing primary outcome events. Aspirin may therefore be the first choice in patients with atrial fibrillation in general practice.

Download full-text


Available from: Jan W Van Ree, Jun 23, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the effectiveness of aspirin, warfarin, and ximelagatran as thromboprophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Systematic review of randomised controlled trials in patients with NVAF treated with adjusted-dose warfarin and aspirin, fixed low-dose (FLD) warfarin, ximelagatran or placebo. Outcome measures studied were ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, mortality and haemorrhage. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model. We identified 13 trials (n=14,423 participants) of sufficient quality to be included in the analysis. Adjusted-dose warfarin significantly reduced the risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with aspirin (relative risk [RR] 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.86), FLD warfarin (RR 0.36; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.58), or placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.45). However, aspirin and placebo had a lower risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin (RR 0.58; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.97 and RR 0.45; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.82, respectively). The oral direct thrombin inhibitor, ximelagatran was as effective as adjusted-dose warfarin in the prevention of ischaemic strokes or systemic emboli (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.40) with less risk of major bleeding (RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.96). Adjusted-dose warfarin significantly reduced mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.89), but not for any of the other comparisons (aspirin: RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.13; FLD warfarin: RR 1.11; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.52; ximelagatran: RR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.26). We have extended previous analyses, making this the largest systematic review and meta-analysis of thromboprophylaxis trial data in AF--and have included recent trials with the new oral direct thrombin inhibitor, ximelagatran. This systematic review confirms the superiority of anticoagulation therapy over aspirin as thromboprophylaxis in patients with NVAF. The new oral direct thrombin inhibitor, ximelagatran, appears as effective as adjusted-dose warfarin for the prevention of thromboembolic events in NVAF, with a lower risk of bleeding.
    Thrombosis Research 02/2006; 118(3):321-33. DOI:10.1016/j.thromres.2005.08.007 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent studies have investigated alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but whether these alternatives are cost-effective is unknown. On the basis of the results from Randomized Evaluation of Long Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) and other trials, we developed a decision-analysis model to compare the cost and quality-adjusted survival of various antithrombotic therapies. We ran our Markov model in a hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old patients with AF using a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000/quality-adjusted life-year. We estimated the cost of dabigatran as US $9 a day. For a patient with an average risk of major hemorrhage (≈3%/y), the most cost-effective therapy depended on stroke risk. For patients with the lowest stroke rate (CHADS2 stroke score of 0), only aspirin was cost-effective. For patients with a moderate stroke rate (CHADS2 score of 1 or 2), warfarin was cost-effective unless the risk of hemorrhage was high or quality of international normalized ratio control was poor (time in the therapeutic range <57.1%). For patients with a high stroke risk (CHADS(2) stroke score ≥3), dabigatran 150 mg (twice daily) was cost-effective unless international normalized ratio control was excellent (time in the therapeutic range >72.6%). Neither dabigatran 110 mg nor dual therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) was cost-effective. Dabigatran 150 mg (twice daily) was cost-effective in AF populations at high risk of hemorrhage or high risk of stroke unless international normalized ratio control with warfarin was excellent. Warfarin was cost-effective in moderate-risk AF populations unless international normalized ratio control was poor.
    Circulation 06/2011; 123(22):2562-70. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.985655 · 14.95 Impact Factor
  • Annals of internal medicine 06/2007; 146(12):857. DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00007 · 16.10 Impact Factor