Direct oral anticoagulants for patients aged over 80 years in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: the impact of frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In patients aged at least 80 years, atrial fibrillation is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality, with a high incidence of stroke. Four new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced in Italy for the prevention of thromboembolism. Their safety and efficacy in the elderly have already been confirmed. Frailty is frequently associated with aging, but only a few studies have paid attention to interactions between frailty and anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety of DOACs in a population aged at least 80 years. Frailty was appraised using an adaptation of the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale, considering a value at least 8 (on a scale from 0 to 18). RESULTS: The majority (644/731) of patients remained on DOACs for more than 1 year. A total of 19 patients experienced a thrombotic event while on anticoagulation (1.11 events per 100 person-years) and 26 patients a major bleeding episode (1.52 events per 100 person-years). The probability of interrupting therapy increased significantly with frailty [hazard ratio 2.91 with confidence interval (CI) 2.15-3.92 at univariate analysis, hazard ratio 2.80 with CI 2.03-3.86 at multivariate]; frailty showed a significant impact also on major bleeding (hazard ratio 3.28 with CI 1.45-7.37 at univariate analysis, hazard ratio 3.56 with CI 1.58-8.01 at multivariate). CONCLUSION: Our study highlights how DOACs are a safe and effective option for anticoagulation, even in frail elderly people; the introduction of these drugs is leading to an increased use of anticoagulation therapy in this population. Prospective trials will be needed to reinforce these results and to consider new variables in the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk scores underlying the prescription of DOACs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".