4.6 Review

Fitting the right non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant to the right patient with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: an evidence-based choice

Journal

ANNALS OF MEDICINE
Volume 50, Issue 4, Pages 288-302

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2018.1460489

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; stroke prevention; new oral anticoagulant; non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants; clinical situations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (IS) and systemic embolism (SE). Stroke prevention is a key element for the overall management of AF patients. The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban, are at least as effective as warfarin in reducing IS/SE with a lower rate of major bleeding. Various analyses from the large Phase III randomized trials demonstrated different efficacy and safety of NOACs in specific subgroups of patients. The randomized trials are supplemented by effectiveness and safety data from real-world observational cohorts following the availability of these drugs for use in everyday clinical practice. Given the clinical heterogeneity of AF patients, the available data from trials and real-world studies allow us to fit the right NOAC to the particular patient's characteristics, with the aim of optimizing outcomes for the individual patient. This review article aims to provide a summary of the evidence on the performance of NOACs in AF patients with specific clinical characteristics. Evidence-based suggestions are presented to provide a simple and viable strategy for clinicians for the choice of a particular NOAC. KEY MESSAGE Given the different performance of the new-oral anticoagulants in patients with the different clinical situation, evidence-based choice of fitting the right new-oral anticoagulants to the patients is provided in this review article.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available