Background DOACs are increasingly used in patients with NVAF. Information on efficacy and safety of these compounds in patients undergoing electrical or pharmacological cardioversion is limited. Thus, we performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature to address this issue. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of DOACs and VKAs in patients with NVAF were systematically searched in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases (up to September 2014). Pooled relative risk (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each outcome. Results Four randomized controlled trials (3635 patients), for a total of 4517 cardioversions (2869 with DOACs and 1648 with VKAs), were included in the analysis. DOACs and VKAs appeared equally effective in the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism (0.41% vs 0.61%; RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.72; P = 0.48) and of post-cardiovascular death (0.52% vs 0.81%; RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.27, 2.03; P = 0.55), with a similar risk of major bleeding complications (0.81% vs 0.60%; RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.55, 2.71). Heterogeneity among studies was generally absent. Furthermore, the Weighted Mean Incidence (WMI) of complications appeared very low in patients randomized to DOACs (WMI: 0.6% and 0.9% for stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding, respectively). Conclusion Our results suggest that DOACs are at least as effective and safe as VKAs in patients with NVAF undergoing to an electrical or pharmacological cardioversion. Thus, DOACs may be considered a valid and practical alternative to VKAs.

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing cardioversion for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

Dentali F.;
2015-01-01

Abstract

Background DOACs are increasingly used in patients with NVAF. Information on efficacy and safety of these compounds in patients undergoing electrical or pharmacological cardioversion is limited. Thus, we performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature to address this issue. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of DOACs and VKAs in patients with NVAF were systematically searched in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases (up to September 2014). Pooled relative risk (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each outcome. Results Four randomized controlled trials (3635 patients), for a total of 4517 cardioversions (2869 with DOACs and 1648 with VKAs), were included in the analysis. DOACs and VKAs appeared equally effective in the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism (0.41% vs 0.61%; RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.72; P = 0.48) and of post-cardiovascular death (0.52% vs 0.81%; RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.27, 2.03; P = 0.55), with a similar risk of major bleeding complications (0.81% vs 0.60%; RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.55, 2.71). Heterogeneity among studies was generally absent. Furthermore, the Weighted Mean Incidence (WMI) of complications appeared very low in patients randomized to DOACs (WMI: 0.6% and 0.9% for stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding, respectively). Conclusion Our results suggest that DOACs are at least as effective and safe as VKAs in patients with NVAF undergoing to an electrical or pharmacological cardioversion. Thus, DOACs may be considered a valid and practical alternative to VKAs.
2015
Atrial fibrillation; Cardioversion; Direct oral anticoagulants
Dentali, F.; Botto, G. L.; Gianni, M.; Ambrosino, P.; Di Minno, M. N. D.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11383/2103779
 Attenzione

L'Ateneo sottopone a validazione solo i file PDF allegati

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 18
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 18
social impact