4.4 Article

Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in clinical practice: a report from three centers in Sweden

期刊

THROMBOSIS JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12959-014-0029-6

关键词

Novel oral anticoagulants; Dabigatran; Atrial fibrillation; Thromboembolism; Major bleeding

资金

  1. Anna and Edwin Bergers Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: In clinical trials new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) have proved to be as effective as warfarin for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these drugs in clinical practise. Methods and results: All patients treated with new oral anticoagulants at Skane University hospital and Halland County Hospital Halmstad between 2009 and September 2013 was identified in the Swedish national quality registry for atrial fibrillation and anticoagulation (AuriculA). Medical records were reviewed to identify thromboembolism and major bleeding and compared to a warfarin cohort with a time in therapeutic range (TTR) of 76%. There were 826 patients, mean age 70.6, follow up 591 years, with atrial fibrillation treated with NOAC. Dabigatran was the initial drug in 79% of the cohort. The incidences of ischemic stroke/TIA and major bleeding were 1.9 (95% CI; 1.0-3.2) and 2.0 (95% CI; 1.1-3.5) per 100 patient-years respectively. The corresponding incidences for warfarin were 1.5 (95% CI; 1.0-2.2) and 2.5 (95% CI; 1.8-3.3), with no statistical significance between the groups. Two subdural hematomas occurred 0.4 (95% CI; 0.06-1.1) per 100 patient-years. Mean age of patients with complications was 77.9 (+/- 5.9) and 69.3 (+/- 11.3) for those without (p < 0.001). The discontinuation rate was 6.5% and 1.7% was due to dyspepsia for dabigatran, lower than the RE-LY trial. Conclusion: This study, largely based on dabigatran shows that treatment is efficient and safe in everyday clinical practice and not significantly different compared to a warfarin cohort with tight anticoagulation control.

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