Impact of prior oral anticoagulation on admission stroke severity in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.5507/bp.2024.024
David Franc, Daniel Sanak, Michal Kral, Martin Hutyra, Milos Taborsky, Petra Divisova, Jana Zapletalova
{"title":"Impact of prior oral anticoagulation on admission stroke severity in patients with atrial fibrillation.","authors":"David Franc, Daniel Sanak, Michal Kral, Martin Hutyra, Milos Taborsky, Petra Divisova, Jana Zapletalova","doi":"10.5507/bp.2024.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>In patients with atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation therapy is indicated for both primary and secondary prevention of stroke/systemic embolism. Though direct oral anticoagulants with greater safety and efficacy than warfarin were introduced into clinical practice at the beginning of the last decade, even now not all patients with AF have adequate preventative anticoagulant treatment. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of prior use of oral anticoagulants on admission stroke severity in those with AF. Other aims were, inter alia, to assess the trend in atrial fibrillation prevalence in the years of the HISTORY trials 2012-2021 carried out in the Czech Republic and use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) in ischemic stroke (IS) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed consecutive ischemic stroke patients who had been enrolled in the HISTORY (Heart and Ischemic STrOke Relationship studY) study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01541163) in the year 2012 and carried out a yearly comparison (detailed in the text).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, there were 1059 patients (55.9% males, mean age 71.7±12.8). There was no significant difference over the time period in rate of known (18.3 vs. 16.5%, P=0.442) or newly detected AF (17.0 vs. 16.0%, P=0.665), but sigificantly more patients with known AF were treated with oral anticoagulants before IS in the year 2021 (32.1 vs. 70.7%, P<0.0001), and direct oral anticoagulants (3.6 vs. 35.4%, P<0.0001). The number of patients with atrial fibrillation had not changed significantly over the years (26.2 vs. 31.3%). Patients on OAC had a lower median admission score on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) than those not using an oral anticoagulant (6 vs. 16, P=0.0004) in 2021.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant upward trend in atrial fibrillation in stroke patients admitted between 2012 and 2021, but patients with known AF were significantly more frequently treated with oral anticoagulants and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in 2021. Patients on OAC had lower admission NIHSS scores than those not using any anticoagulent in the year 2021. The difference in the median admission NIHSS between the patients on OAC and those without OAC treatment was not significant in the year 2012 (6 vs. 12, P=0.066). This might be related to the fact that substantially fewer patients in 2012 were on DOACs, which are considered more effective than warfarin.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5507/bp.2024.024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: In patients with atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation therapy is indicated for both primary and secondary prevention of stroke/systemic embolism. Though direct oral anticoagulants with greater safety and efficacy than warfarin were introduced into clinical practice at the beginning of the last decade, even now not all patients with AF have adequate preventative anticoagulant treatment. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of prior use of oral anticoagulants on admission stroke severity in those with AF. Other aims were, inter alia, to assess the trend in atrial fibrillation prevalence in the years of the HISTORY trials 2012-2021 carried out in the Czech Republic and use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) in ischemic stroke (IS) patients.

Methods: We analyzed consecutive ischemic stroke patients who had been enrolled in the HISTORY (Heart and Ischemic STrOke Relationship studY) study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01541163) in the year 2012 and carried out a yearly comparison (detailed in the text).

Results: In total, there were 1059 patients (55.9% males, mean age 71.7±12.8). There was no significant difference over the time period in rate of known (18.3 vs. 16.5%, P=0.442) or newly detected AF (17.0 vs. 16.0%, P=0.665), but sigificantly more patients with known AF were treated with oral anticoagulants before IS in the year 2021 (32.1 vs. 70.7%, P<0.0001), and direct oral anticoagulants (3.6 vs. 35.4%, P<0.0001). The number of patients with atrial fibrillation had not changed significantly over the years (26.2 vs. 31.3%). Patients on OAC had a lower median admission score on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) than those not using an oral anticoagulant (6 vs. 16, P=0.0004) in 2021.

Conclusions: There was no significant upward trend in atrial fibrillation in stroke patients admitted between 2012 and 2021, but patients with known AF were significantly more frequently treated with oral anticoagulants and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in 2021. Patients on OAC had lower admission NIHSS scores than those not using any anticoagulent in the year 2021. The difference in the median admission NIHSS between the patients on OAC and those without OAC treatment was not significant in the year 2012 (6 vs. 12, P=0.066). This might be related to the fact that substantially fewer patients in 2012 were on DOACs, which are considered more effective than warfarin.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
既往口服抗凝药对心房颤动患者入院时中风严重程度的影响。
背景和目的:对于心房颤动患者,口服抗凝疗法适用于中风/系统性栓塞的一级和二级预防。虽然比华法林更安全、更有效的直接口服抗凝药在上个十年初被引入临床实践,但即使是现在,也并非所有心房颤动患者都能得到充分的预防性抗凝治疗。本研究的主要目的是评估先前使用口服抗凝药对房颤患者入院时中风严重程度的影响。其他目的还包括评估 2012-2021 年捷克共和国 HISTORY 试验期间心房颤动患病率的变化趋势,以及缺血性中风(IS)患者口服抗凝剂(OAC)的使用情况:我们分析了 2012 年在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册的 HISTORY(心脏与缺血性脑卒中关系研究)研究(标识符 NCT01541163)中登记的连续缺血性脑卒中患者,并进行了年度比较(详见正文):共有 1059 名患者(55.9% 为男性,平均年龄为 71.7±12.8)。在此期间,已知房颤率(18.3% 对 16.5%,P=0.442)或新发现房颤率(17.0% 对 16.0%,P=0.665)无明显差异,但在 2021 年 IS 前接受口服抗凝剂治疗的已知房颤患者明显增多(32.1% 对 70.7%,PConclusions):2012 年至 2021 年期间收治的脑卒中患者中,心房颤动患者人数没有明显上升趋势,但 2021 年已知心房颤动患者接受口服抗凝药和直接口服抗凝药(DOAC)治疗的人数明显增多。与未使用任何抗凝剂的患者相比,使用口服抗凝剂的患者在2021年的入院NIHSS评分更低。在2012年,使用OAC和未使用OAC治疗的患者入院NIHSS中位数差异不显著(6 vs. 12,P=0.066)。这可能与2012年使用DOAC的患者人数大幅减少有关,而DOAC被认为比华法林更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1