RT Generic
T1 Direct Oral Anticoagulants versus Warfarin in Octogenarians with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
A1 Bonanad, Clara
A1 Garcia-Blas, Sergio
A1 Llergo, Javier Torres
A1 Fernandez-Olmo, Rosa
A1 Diez-Villanueva, Pablo
A1 Ariza-Sole, Albert
A1 Martinez-Selles, Manuel
A1 Raposeiras, Sergio
A1 Ayesta, Ana
A1 Bertomeu-Gonzalez, Vicente
A1 Tarazona Santabalbina, Francisco
A1 Facila, Lorenzo
A1 Vivas, David
A1 Gabaldon-Perez, Ana
A1 Bodi, Vicente
A1 Nunez, Julio
A1 Cordero, Alberto
K1 elderly
K1 acute coronary syndrome
K1 myocardial infarction
K1 vitamin-K antagonist
K1 direct oral anticoagulants
K1 Stroke prevention
K1 Elderly-patients
K1 Efficacy
K1 Older
K1 Risk
K1 Dabigatran
K1 Apixaban
K1 Safety
K1 Age
K1 Epidemiology
AB Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrated to be more effective and safer than vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis aims to assess the effect of DOACS vs. VKA in patients >= 80 and AF. Primary endpoints were stroke or systemic embolism and all-cause death. Secondary endpoints included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding. A random-effects model was selected due to significant heterogeneity. A total of 147,067 patients from 16 studies were included, 71,913 (48.90%) treated with DOACs and 75,154 with VKA (51.10%). The stroke rate was significantly lower in DOACs group compared with warfarin group (Relative risk (RR): 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.82; p = 80 and AF. Primary endpoints were stroke or systemic embolism and all-cause death. Secondary endpoints included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding. A random-effects model was selected due to significant heterogeneity. A total of 147,067 patients from 16 studies were included, 71,913 (48.90%) treated with DOACs and 75,154 with VKA (51.10%). The stroke rate was significantly lower in DOACs group compared with warfarin group (Relative risk (RR): 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.82; p
PB Mdpi
YR 2021
FD 2021-11-01
LK https://hdl.handle.net/10668/26603
UL https://hdl.handle.net/10668/26603
LA en
DS RISalud
RD Apr 5, 2025