CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

What's new in the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial infarction? Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 Respiratory syncytial virus infection and risk of acute myocardial infarction Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: from mechanisms to therapies The SABRE Trial (Sirolimus Angioplasty Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis): Angiographic Results and 1-Year Clinical Outcomes Does calcium burden impact culprit lesion morphology and clinical results? An ADAPT-DES IVUS substudy Sex Differences in Clinical Profiles and Quality of Care Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction From 2001 to 2011: Insights From the China Patient-Centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE)-Retrospective Study Direct comparison of cardiac myosin-binding protein C with cardiac troponins for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction Low-Dose Aspirin Discontinuation and Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Swedish Nationwide, Population-Based Cohort Study Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction

Expert Opinion

JOURNAL:ACC Article Link

Anticoagulation in Concomitant CKD and AF

Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, FACC


The following are key points to remember from this review on anticoagulation in concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation (AF):

 

1.   AF and CKD often coexist as they share multiple risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease.

2.   Although there is irrefutable evidence supporting anticoagulation in AF in the general population, these data may not necessarily be applicable in the setting of advanced CKD, where the decision to commence anticoagulation poses a conundrum.

3.   Among patients with CKD, there is a progressively increased risk of both ischemic stroke and hemorrhage as renal function declines, complicating the decision to initiate anticoagulation.

4.   No definitive clinical guidelines derived from randomized controlled trials exist to aid clinical decision making, and the findings from observational studies are conflicting.

5.   The limited available data suggest that direct oral anticoagulants should generally be favored over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in view of their probable increased safety and efficacy in CKD, with a lower risk of vascular calcification and anticoagulant-associated nephropathy.

6.   Although there are limited efficacy and safety outcome data, both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency have approved reduced doses of apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate 15-30 ml/min; the FDA has also approved the use of a specific low-dose dabigatran (75 mg twice daily), based solely on pharmacokinetic data, for these patients.

7.   The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) recommendations (2018) concluded that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend VKAs for prevention of stroke in CKD stage 5 patients with AF, especially when balancing the significant risks of bleeding, accelerated vascular calcification, and calcific uremic arteriopathy associated with VKA therapy.

8.   More recently, there was an updated 2019 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society focused update guideline for the management of patients with AF; in this report, there was a soft recommendation for using anticoagulation with either warfarin or apixaban with the caveat but further study is warranted.

9.  Until dedicated randomized clinical trials are completed, to define optimal management, clinical decision making should be informed by the limited data available, which necessitates individualization and physician-patient collaboration and discussion.

10. A rigorous discussion of the risk and benefits of anticoagulation, taking into account patientscharacteristics and preferences, is important to decide on appropriate management. If anticoagulation is not initiated, the viability of a nonpharmacological treatment such as left atrial appendage occlusion may be considered, or whether in fact no therapy is the best choice for that individual patient.