4.7 Article

Bleeding Risk During Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Older Than 80 Years

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 11, Pages 999-1002

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.05.046

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; bleeding; elderly; quality of anticoagulation; warfarin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives We sought to evaluate the rate of bleeding in relation to age (<80 and >= 80 years), the quality of anticoagulation (expressed as time spent in international normalized ratio therapeutic range), and factors associated with bleeding events. Background Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasingly crucial public health target, particularly in patients ages >= 80 years. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study on 783 patients with AF on oral anticoagulant treatment (OAT). Results Patients spent a median 14%, 71%, and 15% of time below, within, and above the intended therapeutic range, respectively. No difference in OAT quality was found between patients age <80 and >= 80 years. During follow-up, 94 patients experienced bleeding complications (rate 3.7 x 100 patient/years), 37 major (rate 1.4 x 100 patient/years), and 57 minor ( rate 2.2 x 100 patient/years). Different rates of major hemorrhage were observed between patients age <80 and >= 80 years (0.9 vs. 1.9 x 100 patient/years; p = 0.004). Bleeding risk also was greater in patients with a history of previous cerebral ischemic event (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 4.8; p = 0.007). A Cox regression analysis confirmed age < 80 years associated with bleeding risk (OR: 2.0). Conclusions These results indicate that the rate of major bleeding complications may be kept acceptably low also in very elderly AF patients on OAT, provided a careful management of anticoagulation is obtained. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:999-1002) (c) 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available