4.4 Article

Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Residual Stroke Risk and Major Bleeding in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulants

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 113, 期 3, 页码 485-490

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.10.035

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies comparing gender-specific outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have reported conflicting results. Gender differences in cerebrovascular accident/systemic embolism (CVA/SE) or major bleeding outcomes with novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use are not known. The goal of this analysis was to perform a systematic review and Meta-analysis evaluating gender differences in residual risk of CVA/SE and major bleeding outcomes in patients with nonvalvular AF treated with either warfarin or NOAC. Sixty-four randomized studies were identified using keywords gender, AF, and CVA. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analysis method, 6 studies met criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis. CVA/SE and major bleeding outcomes were separately analyzed in cohorts receiving warfarin and NOAC agents, comparing men with women. Women with AF taking warfarin were at a significantly greater residual risk of CVA/SE compared with men (odds ratio 1.279, 95% confidence interval 1.111 to 1.473, Z = -3.428, p = 0.001). No gender difference in residual risk of CVA/SE was noted in patients with AF receiving NOAC agents (odds ratio 1.146, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.354, p = 0.109). Major bleeding was less frequent in women with AF treated with NOAC. In conclusion, women with AF treated with warfarin have a greater residual risk of CVA/ SE and an equivalent major bleeding risk, whereas those treated with NOAC agents deemed superior to warfarin are at equivalent residual risk of CVA/SE and less major bleeding risk compared with men. These results suggest an increased net clinical benefit of NOAC agents compared with warfarin in treating women with AF. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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