非维生素K口服抗凝剂与华法林治疗心房颤动和既往卒中患者的有效性和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neuroepidemiology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1159/000534596
Minglei Shi, Lu Liu, Hatem Wafa, Vasa Curcin, Yanzhong Wang
{"title":"非维生素K口服抗凝剂与华法林治疗心房颤动和既往卒中患者的有效性和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Minglei Shi, Lu Liu, Hatem Wafa, Vasa Curcin, Yanzhong Wang","doi":"10.1159/000534596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous stroke is inconclusive, especially in patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH). We aim to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with a history of stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched studies published up to December 10, 2022, on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies on adults with AF and previous ischaemic stroke (IS) or IrCH receiving either NOACs or warfarin and capturing outcome events (thromboembolic events, ICrH, and all-cause mortality) were eligible for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including 19,489 patients with previous IS) and fifteen observational studies (including 132,575 patients with previous IS and 13,068 patients with previous ICrH) were included. RCT data showed that compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96), ICrH (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). In analysing observational studies, similar results were retrieved. Moreover, patients with previous ICrH had a lower OR on thromboembolic events than those with IS (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95 vs. OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93) in the comparison between NOACs and warfarin.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Observational data showed that in AF patients with previous stroke, NOACs showed better clinical performance compared to warfarin and the benefits of NOACs were more pronounced in patients with previous IrCH versus those with IS. RCT data also showed NOACs are superior to warfarin. However, current RCTs only included AF patients who survived an IS, and further large RCTs focused on patients with previous ICrH are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":54730,"journal":{"name":"Neuroepidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10836928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Previous Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Minglei Shi, Lu Liu, Hatem Wafa, Vasa Curcin, Yanzhong Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000534596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous stroke is inconclusive, especially in patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH). We aim to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with a history of stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched studies published up to December 10, 2022, on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies on adults with AF and previous ischaemic stroke (IS) or IrCH receiving either NOACs or warfarin and capturing outcome events (thromboembolic events, ICrH, and all-cause mortality) were eligible for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including 19,489 patients with previous IS) and fifteen observational studies (including 132,575 patients with previous IS and 13,068 patients with previous ICrH) were included. RCT data showed that compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96), ICrH (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). In analysing observational studies, similar results were retrieved. Moreover, patients with previous ICrH had a lower OR on thromboembolic events than those with IS (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95 vs. OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93) in the comparison between NOACs and warfarin.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Observational data showed that in AF patients with previous stroke, NOACs showed better clinical performance compared to warfarin and the benefits of NOACs were more pronounced in patients with previous IrCH versus those with IS. RCT data also showed NOACs are superior to warfarin. However, current RCTs only included AF patients who survived an IS, and further large RCTs focused on patients with previous ICrH are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroepidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10836928/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroepidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534596\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroepidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534596","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:目前关于非维生素K口服抗凝剂(NOAC)与华法林在心房颤动(AF)和既往卒中患者中的临床结果的证据尚不确定,尤其是在既往颅内出血(ICrH)患者中。我们的目的是进行一项系统综述和荟萃分析,评估NOAC与华法林在有卒中史的房颤患者中的有效性和安全性。方法:我们检索了截至2022年12月10日在PubMed、Medline、Embase和Cochrane对照试验中央注册中心发表的研究。对接受NOAC或华法林治疗并记录结果事件(血栓栓塞事件、ICrH和全因死亡率)的患有房颤和既往缺血性卒中(IS)或IrCH的成年人的研究符合入选条件。结果:纳入6项随机对照试验(包括19489名既往IS患者)和15项观察性研究(包括132575名既往IS和13068名既往ICrH患者)。随机对照试验数据显示,与华法林相比,NOAC与血栓栓塞事件(OR 0.85,95%CI 0.75-0.96)、ICrH(OR 0.57,95%CI 0.36-0.90)和全因死亡率(OR 0.88,95%CI 0.80-0.98)的显著降低有关。在分析观察性研究时,获得了类似的结果。此外,在NOAC和华法林之间的比较中,既往ICrH患者的血栓栓塞事件OR低于IS患者(OR 0.66,95%CI 0.46-0.95对OR 0.80,95%CI 0.70-0.93)。结论:观察数据显示,与华法林相比,既往有卒中的房颤患者的NOAC表现出更好的临床表现,既往有IrCH的患者与IS患者相比,NOAC的益处更为明显。随机对照试验数据还显示,NOAC优于华法林。然而,目前的随机对照试验仅包括在IS中幸存的AF患者,有必要进一步对既往ICrH患者进行大规模随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Previous Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Current evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous stroke is inconclusive, especially in patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH). We aim to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with a history of stroke.

Methods: We searched studies published up to December 10, 2022, on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies on adults with AF and previous ischaemic stroke (IS) or IrCH receiving either NOACs or warfarin and capturing outcome events (thromboembolic events, ICrH, and all-cause mortality) were eligible for inclusion.

Results: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including 19,489 patients with previous IS) and fifteen observational studies (including 132,575 patients with previous IS and 13,068 patients with previous ICrH) were included. RCT data showed that compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96), ICrH (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). In analysing observational studies, similar results were retrieved. Moreover, patients with previous ICrH had a lower OR on thromboembolic events than those with IS (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95 vs. OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93) in the comparison between NOACs and warfarin.

Conclusions: Observational data showed that in AF patients with previous stroke, NOACs showed better clinical performance compared to warfarin and the benefits of NOACs were more pronounced in patients with previous IrCH versus those with IS. RCT data also showed NOACs are superior to warfarin. However, current RCTs only included AF patients who survived an IS, and further large RCTs focused on patients with previous ICrH are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroepidemiology
Neuroepidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
49
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Neuroepidemiology'' is the only internationally recognised peer-reviewed periodical devoted to descriptive, analytical and experimental studies in the epidemiology of neurologic disease. The scope of the journal expands the boundaries of traditional clinical neurology by providing new insights regarding the etiology, determinants, distribution, management and prevention of diseases of the nervous system.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信