4.7 Article

Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Mitral Stenosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 10, Pages 1123-1131

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.047

Keywords

atrial fibrillation; intracranial hemorrhage; ischemic stroke; mitral stenosis; systemic embolism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Patients with mitral stenosis and atrial fibrillation (AF) require anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Thus far, all studies on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have excluded patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to validate the efficacy of DOACs in patients with mitral stenosis. METHODS The study population was enrolled from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database in the Republic of Korea, and it included patients who were diagnosed with mitral stenosis and AF and either were prescribed DOACs for off-label use or received conventional treatment with warfarin. The primary efficacy endpoint was ischemic strokes or systemic embolisms, and the safety outcome was intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS A total of 2,230 patients (mean age 69.7 +/- 10.5 years; 682 [30.6%] males) were included in the present study. Thromboembolic events occurred at a rate of 2.22%/ year in the DOAC group, and 4.19%/ year in the warfarin group (adjusted hazard ratio for DOAC: 0.28; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.45). Intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.49% of the DOAC group and 0.93% of the warfarin group (adjusted hazard ratio for DOAC: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.22 to 1.26). CONCLUSIONS In patients with AF accompanied with mitral stenosis, DOAC use is promising and hypothesis generating in preventing thromboembolism. Our results need to be replicated in a randomized trial. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73: 1123-31) (c) 2019 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