3.8 Article

Current use of direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation in Japan: Findings from the SAKURA AF Registry

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARRHYTHMIA
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 289-296

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.joa.2016.11.003

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; Direct oral anticoagulants; Warfarin; SAKURA AF Registry

资金

  1. Astellas Pharma
  2. Bayer Healthcare
  3. Boehringer Ingelheim
  4. Bristol-Meyers Squibb
  5. Daiichi-Sankyo
  6. Eisai
  7. MSD
  8. Nihon Medi-Physics
  9. Pfizer
  10. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Large-scale investigations on the use of oral anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have not included Japanese patients. Methods: We established the multicenter SAKURA AF Registry to support prospective observational research on the status of anticoagulation treatment, especially with DOAC, for AF in Japan. We enrolled 3266 AF patients treated with warfarin (n=1577) or any of 4 DOACs (n=1689) from 63 institutions (2 cardiovascular centers, 13 affiliated hospitals or community hospitals, and 48 private clinics) in the Tokyo area. Results: We conducted our first analysis of the registry data, and although we found equivalent mean age between the DOAC and warfarin users (71.8 +/- 9.5 vs. 72.3 +/- 9.4 years, p=0.2117), we found a slightly lower risk of stroke (CHADS2 score of 0 or 1 [46.9% vs. 39.4%, p < 0.00011) and significantly better creatinine clearance in DOAC users (70.4 +/- 27 vs. 65.6 +/- 25.7 mL/min, p < 0.0001). Importantly, we documented under-dosing in 32% of warfarin users and inappropriate-low-dosing in 19.7-27.6% of DOAC users. Conclusions: Our initial analysis of the SAKURA AF Registry data clarified the real-world use of anticoagulants, which includes DOACs and warfarin in Japan. The DOAC users were at a lower risk for stroke than the warfarin users. In 20-30% of DOAC users, the dose was inappropriately reduced. (C) 2016 Japanese Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据