4.4 Review

Atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease: A review of options for therapeutic anticoagulation to reduce thromboembolism risk

期刊

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 1395-1402

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23085

关键词

arrhythmia/all; atrial fibrillation; general clinical cardiology/adult; kidney disease; pharmacology; stroke prevention

资金

  1. Biosense-Webster
  2. Biotronik

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease (CKD) commonly occur together, which poses a therapeutic dilemma due to increased risk of both systemic thromboembolism and bleeding. Chronic kidney disease also has implications for medication selection. The objective of this review is to evaluate the options for anticoagulation for thromboembolism prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease. We searched PubMed for studies of patients with atrial fibrillation and CKD on warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for thromboembolism prevention through January 1 2018, in addition to evaluating major trials evaluating DOACs and warfarin use as well as society guidelines. For patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease, primarily observational data supports the use of warfarin, and high quality trial data and meta-analyses support the use and possible superiority of DOACs. For patients with severe chronic kidney disease, there are limited data on warfarin which supports its use, and data for DOACs is limited primarily to pharmacologic studies which support dose reductions but lack information on patient outcomes. For patients with end-stage renal disease, studies on warfarin are conflicting, but the majority suggest a lack of benefit and possible harm; studies in DOACs are very limited, but apixaban is the least renally cleared and may be both safe and effective. In conclusion, warfarin or DOACs may be used based on the degree of severity of chronic kidney disease, but further study in needed in patients with end-stage renal disease.

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