Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Antagonists in Oldest Old Patients: A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE: The safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in oldest old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in daily clinical practice has not been systematically assessed. This study examined the safety of DOACs and dicumarol (a vitamin K antagonist) in NVAF geriatric patients. DESIGN: Prospective study from January 2010 through June 2015, with follow-up through January 2016. SETTING: Geriatric medicine department at a tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 554 outpatients, 75 years or older, diagnosed of NVAF and starting oral anticoagulation. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome was bleeding, which was classified into major (including those life-threatening) and nonmajor episodes. Statistical analyses were performed with Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients received DOACs and 193 dicumarol. Patients on DOACs were older, with more frequent comorbidities, mobility limitation and disability in activities of daily living, as well as higher mortality, than those treated with dicumarol. The incidence of any bleeding was 19.2/100 person-years among patients on DOACs and 13.7/100 person-years on dicumarol; corresponding figures for major bleeding were 5.2 for those on DOACs, and 3.3 for those on dicumarol. In crude analyses, hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for any bleeding, and for mayor bleeding in patients on DOACs vs dicumarol were 1.60 (1.04-2.44) and 2.22 (0.88-5.59), respectively. Excess risk of bleeding associated with DOACs vs dicumarol disappeared after adjustment for clinical characteristics, so that corresponding figures were 1.19 (0.68-2.08) and 1.01 (0.35-2.93). Results did not vary across subgroups of high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: In very old patients with NVAF, the higher risk of bleeding associated with DOACs vs dicumarol could be mostly explained by the worse clinical profile of patients receiving DOACs. Risk of bleeding was rather high, and warrants close clinical monitoring

Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies