Yao, Xiaoxi

BackgroundSurgical exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) can be performed at the time of cardiac operation as a potential modality to decrease cardioembolic risk attributable to atrial fibrillation (AF), but it remains unclear if this decreases stroke incidence. Furthermore, it is not known whether LAA exclusion impacts the decision to discontinue anticoagulation impacting subsequent stroke risk.HypothesisLAA exclusion does not significantly alter subsequent anticoagulation use or stroke incidence.MethodsWe studied 124 patients from Olmsted County with prior history of AF who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution between 1993 and 2015. Patients were divided into two groups on the basis of LAA exclusion and matched (1:1) according to 16 pretreatment variables using propensity scores obtained from a logistic regression model. Outcome data collected through chart review for survival, stroke, and the presence and duration of anticoagulation were compared between groups.ResultsThe proportion of patients receiving anticoagulation at discharge and at 5 years was not significantly different between patients who underwent LAA exclusion and those who did not; 90% vs 81%, P = 0.156, 48% vs 49%, P = 0.722, respectively. On Kaplan‐Meier analysis there were no significant differences in time free from stroke between cases and controls. Patients discharged on oral anticoagulation (OAC) had significantly lower risk of stroke (HR = 0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06‐0.59, P = 0.004), independent of whether LAA closure was used.ConclusionLAA exclusion did not appear to reduce early or late stroke. Only OAC was associated with a reduction in stroke risk, underscoring the need for continued anticoagulation in high‐risk patients.

Background: Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on dialysis were excluded from clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent data have raised concerns regarding the safety of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, but apixaban has not been evaluated despite current labeling supporting its use in this population. The goal of this study was to determine patterns of apixaban use and its associated outcomes in dialysis-dependent patients with ESKD and AF. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries included in the United States Renal Data System (October 2010 to December 2015). Eligible patients were those with ESKD and AF undergoing dialysis who initiated treatment with an oral anticoagulant. Because of the small number of dabigatran and rivaroxaban users, outcomes were only assessed in patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Apixaban and warfarin patients were matched (1:3) based on prognostic score. Differences between groups in survival free of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and death were assessed using Kaplan–Meier analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were derived from Cox regression analyses. Results: The study population consisted of 25 523 patients (45.7% women; 68.2±11.9 years of age), including 2351 patients on apixaban and 23 172 patients on warfarin. An annual increase in apixaban prescriptions was observed after its marketing approval at the end of 2012, such that 26.6% of new anticoagulant prescriptions in 2015 were for apixaban. In matched cohorts, there was no difference in the risks of stroke/systemic embolism between apixaban and warfarin (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69–1.12; P =0.29), but apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.87; P <0.001). In sensitivity analyses, standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice a day; n=1034) was associated with significantly lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism and death as compared with either reduced-dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice a day; n=1317; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.98; P =0.04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45–0.92; P =0.01 for death) or warfarin (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.97; P =0.04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46–0.85; P =0.003 for death). Conclusions: Among patients with ESKD and AF on dialysis, apixaban use may be associated with a lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin, with a standard 5 mg twice a day dose also associated with reductions in thromboembolic and mortality risk.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in July 2015. We aimed to assess the adoption and prescription drug costs of sacubitril/valsartan in its first 18 months after Food and Drug Administration approval. Methods and Results: Using a large US insurance database, we identified privately insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who filled a first prescription for sacubitril/valsartan between July 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. We compared them to patients treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. Outcomes included adoption, prescription drug costs, and 180-day adherence, defined as a proportion of days covered ≥80%. A total of 2244 patients initiated sacubitril/valsartan. Although the number of users increased over time, the proportion of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients taking sacubitril/valsartan remained low (<3%). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan were younger, more often male, with less comorbidity than those taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker. Although a majority of prescription costs were covered by the health plan (mean, $328.37; median, $362.44 per 30-day prescription), out-of-pocket costs were still high (mean, $71.16; median, $40.27). By comparison, median out-of-pocket costs were $2 to $3 for lisinopril, losartan, carvedilol, and spironolactone. Overall, 59.1% of patients were adherent to sacubitril/valsartan. Refill patterns suggested that nearly half of nonadherent patients discontinued sacubitril/valsartan within 180 days of starting. Conclusions: Adoption of sacubitril/valsartan after Food and Drug Administration approval has been slow and may be associated with the high cost.