Use of oral anticoagulation for people with atrial fibrillation post-stroke and associations with recurrent stroke and mortality: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) to reduce recurrent stroke risk for people with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, outcomes for post-stroke AF patients receiving different types of anticoagulants and optimal timing of anticoagulation in this population remains unclear. Purpose The objective of this systematic review was to summarise observational study data reporting associations between OAC use and risk of mortality, recurrent stroke, and major bleeding within post-stroke AF populations. Methods SCOPUS and OVID Medline databases were searched from inception to 02/11/2020. Studies were limited to publications in the English language post-2012. Observational studies, including case-control and cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. The outcomes examined were all-cause mortality, recurrent stroke and major bleeding. Screening and risk of bias assessment with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were completed independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. The review was registered on PROSPERO: CRD42020221105. Results Searches identified 3803 studies; 29 studies were eligible for inclusion. Variations between studies including time of OAC initiation, types of OACs used, and length of follow-up meant a meta-analysis was not possible. Four of six studies reporting effect measures of pre-admission or post-stroke OAC use found significant associations with reduced all-cause post-stroke mortality compared to no OAC use (Figure 1A). One study reported lower recurrent stroke rates in patients with no preadmission OAC use compared to preadmission OAC use (2.9% vs. 5.3%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.21). A separate study found post-stroke OAC use resulted in a non-significant lower stroke recurrence rate compared to no post-stroke OAC use (3.7% vs. 4.3%; p=0.9). Eight studies examined non-vitamin K antagonist OACs (NOACs) compared to warfarin; five demonstrated significant associations between post-stroke NOAC use and improved outcomes such as post-stroke mortality (Figure 1B). Two studies examined post-stroke OAC therapy timing; both suggested OAC initiation within 4 days of the index event was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (4.5% and 0.6% vs. 8.7% and 3.1%) and recurrent stroke rates (9.4% and 0.8% vs. 10.5% and 1.6%). One study reported non-significant increased major bleeding rates for earlier OAC initiation (2.7% vs. 2.2%; aHR 1.39, 95% CI 0.42–4.60). Overall, the results were consistent with previously published randomised controlled trials. Conclusions Evidence from observational studies suggest that the overall benefit of NOACs in reducing recurrent stroke and post-stroke mortality outweighs the risk of major bleeding in post-stroke AF patients. There is a need for further studies to evaluate the optimum timing of post-stroke anticoagulation initiation and management differences in patients with AF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): The project is supported by the MRes programme in the Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences at The University of Liverpool. All-Cause Mortality Forest Plots
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».