Subclinical atrial fibrillation: Who benefits from oral anticoagulation?

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Dan Atar, Cecilia Linde
{"title":"Subclinical atrial fibrillation: Who benefits from oral anticoagulation?","authors":"Dan Atar, Cecilia Linde","doi":"10.33963/v.phj.106733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The value of anticoagulation to prevent embolic strokes in subclinical atrial fibrillation detected by implantable cardiac devices has not been established. Recently, two randomized controlled studies scrutinized whether such patients benefit from oral anticoagulation to prevent embolic strokes. These two studies were the NOAH-AFNET-6 (Anticoagulation with Edoxaban in patients with atrial high-rate episodes) trial and the ARTESIA (Apixaban for stroke prevention in subclinical atrial fibrillation) study but separately came to different conclusions using different primary endpoints. While the investigators of NOAH-AFNET-6, based on a composite primary endpoint, concluded that no patient with device-detected AF should be anticoagulated, the ARTESIA investigators demonstrated overall value of anticoagulation based on stroke/systemic embolism as sole endpoint. However, the main question for subclinical atrial fibrillation patients is to which extent stroke and thromboembolism can be prevented by anticoagulation and weighing such a benefit to the risk of major bleeding. After initial confusion a meta-analysis of both studies focusing on the endpoint \"ischemic stroke\" and \"all-cause stroke\" revealed an overall superiority of anticoagulation against placebo/aspirin therapy. The combined evidence did in the end inform the cardiovascular community of the superiority of anticoagulation but confined to those with high risk i.e. CHA₂DS₂-VASc score >4, particularly in those with any type of vascular disease. The meta-analysis also revealed that no anticoagulation is indicated in patients with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score <4, and with shared decision making recommended for those with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of = 4. It is reassuring that despite a first impression of diverging results of the major two trials, a meta-analysis helped to clarify the uniformity and consistency of the results across the studies, which will help physicians and nurses in their daily care of patients with implantable devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":17784,"journal":{"name":"Kardiologia polska","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kardiologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33963/v.phj.106733","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The value of anticoagulation to prevent embolic strokes in subclinical atrial fibrillation detected by implantable cardiac devices has not been established. Recently, two randomized controlled studies scrutinized whether such patients benefit from oral anticoagulation to prevent embolic strokes. These two studies were the NOAH-AFNET-6 (Anticoagulation with Edoxaban in patients with atrial high-rate episodes) trial and the ARTESIA (Apixaban for stroke prevention in subclinical atrial fibrillation) study but separately came to different conclusions using different primary endpoints. While the investigators of NOAH-AFNET-6, based on a composite primary endpoint, concluded that no patient with device-detected AF should be anticoagulated, the ARTESIA investigators demonstrated overall value of anticoagulation based on stroke/systemic embolism as sole endpoint. However, the main question for subclinical atrial fibrillation patients is to which extent stroke and thromboembolism can be prevented by anticoagulation and weighing such a benefit to the risk of major bleeding. After initial confusion a meta-analysis of both studies focusing on the endpoint "ischemic stroke" and "all-cause stroke" revealed an overall superiority of anticoagulation against placebo/aspirin therapy. The combined evidence did in the end inform the cardiovascular community of the superiority of anticoagulation but confined to those with high risk i.e. CHA₂DS₂-VASc score >4, particularly in those with any type of vascular disease. The meta-analysis also revealed that no anticoagulation is indicated in patients with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score <4, and with shared decision making recommended for those with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of = 4. It is reassuring that despite a first impression of diverging results of the major two trials, a meta-analysis helped to clarify the uniformity and consistency of the results across the studies, which will help physicians and nurses in their daily care of patients with implantable devices.

亚临床房颤:谁从口服抗凝药物中受益?
在植入式心脏装置检测到亚临床心房颤动时,抗凝治疗对预防栓塞性卒中的价值尚未确定。最近,两项随机对照研究仔细检查了这些患者是否受益于口服抗凝剂来预防栓塞性中风。这两项研究分别是noaa - afnet -6(应用艾多沙班抗凝治疗心房高发生率发作患者)试验和ARTESIA(阿哌沙班预防亚临床房颤卒中)研究,但分别使用不同的主要终点得出了不同的结论。NOAH-AFNET-6的研究人员基于复合主要终点得出结论,设备检测到的房颤患者不应进行抗凝治疗,而ARTESIA的研究人员则以卒中/全身性栓塞为唯一终点,证明了抗凝治疗的总体价值。然而,亚临床心房颤动患者的主要问题是抗凝在多大程度上可以预防中风和血栓栓塞,并权衡这种益处对大出血风险的影响。在最初的混乱之后,一项针对“缺血性卒中”和“全因卒中”两项研究的荟萃分析显示,抗凝治疗与安慰剂/阿司匹林治疗相比具有总体优势。综合证据最终确实告知了心血管社区抗凝的优越性,但仅限于高风险人群,即CHA₂DS₂-VASc评分为bbbb4,特别是任何类型的血管疾病患者。荟萃分析还显示,CHA₂DS₂-VASc评分患者不需要抗凝治疗
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Kardiologia polska
Kardiologia polska 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
24.20%
发文量
431
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Kardiologia Polska (Kardiol Pol, Polish Heart Journal) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Polish Cardiac Society (PTK, Polskie Towarzystwo Kardiologiczne) published monthly since 1957. It aims to provide a platform for sharing knowledge in cardiology, from basic science to translational and clinical research on cardiovascular diseases.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信