Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

The optimal antithrombotic strategy for post-stroke patients with atrial fibrillation and extracranial artery stenosis—a nationwide cohort study

BMC Medicine volume 22, Article number: 113 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In post-stroke atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who have indications for both oral anticoagulant (OAC) and antiplatelet agent (AP), e.g., those with carotid artery stenosis, there is debate over the best antithrombotic strategy. We aimed to compare the risks of ischemic stroke, composite of ischemic stroke/major bleeding and composite of ischemic stroke/intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) between different antithrombotic strategies.

Methods

This study included post-stroke AF patients with and without extracranial artery stenosis (ECAS) (n = 6390 and 28,093, respectively) identified from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Risks of clinical outcomes and net clinical benefit (NCB) with different antithrombotic strategies were compared to AP alone.

Results

The risk of recurrent ischemic stroke was higher for patients with ECAS than those without (12.72%/yr versus 10.60/yr; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.104, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.052–1.158, p < 0.001). For patients with ECAS, when compared to AP only, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) monotherapy was associated with lower risks for ischaemic stroke (aHR 0.551, 95% CI 0.454—0.669), the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding (aHR 0.626, 95% CI 0.529—0.741) and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH (aHR 0.577, 95% CI 0.478—0.697), with non-significant difference for major bleeding and ICH. When compared to AP only, warfarin monotherapy was associated with higher risks of major bleeding (aHR 1.521, 95% CI 1.231—1.880), ICH (aHR 2.045, 95% CI 1.329—3.148), and the composite of ischaemic stroke and major bleeding. With combination of AP plus warfarin, there was an increase in ischaemic stroke, major bleeding, and the composite outcomes, when compared to AP only. NOAC monotherapy was the only approach associated with a positive NCB, while all other options (warfarin, combination of AP-OAC) were associated with negative NCB.

Conclusions

For post-stroke AF patients with ECAS, NOAC monotherapy was associated with lower risks of adverse outcomes and a positive NCB. Combination of AP with NOAC or warfarin did not offer any benefit, but more bleeding especially with AP-warfarin combination therapy.

Peer Review reports

Background

Vascular disease (whether coronary, carotid, or peripheral artery disease) is commonly present in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and may be evident as prevalent or newly diagnosed in the post-stroke setting. Secondary prevention requires oral anticoagulant (OAC) to prevent recurrent stroke due to AF, but for vascular disease in the non-AF setting, anti-platelet agents (AP) are often prescribed to prevent recurrent stroke.

Thus, in stable post-stroke AF patients with indications for both OAC and antiplatelet treatment, e.g. those with associated vascular diseases, there is debate over the best antithrombotic strategy [1, 2]. There are some data for AF patients with stable coronary artery disease from observational cohorts and randomised trials [3, 4], but data for AF patients with carotid or vertebral artery disease are limited. Indeed, about one in 10 patients with AF have extracranial artery stenosis (ECAS), and vice versa, and non-stenotic carotid artery disease is present in about half of AF patients [5]. Such patients are commonly treated with AP alone, or if OAC is used, some physicians may consider the combination of AP and OAC. However, in the era whereby non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) is the preferred stroke prevention strategy for AF patients [2], there are limited data for the use of NOACs in post-stroke AF patients with ECAS.

In this nationwide cohort study, our aim was to examine outcomes in post-stroke AF patients with ECAS. Furthermore, we aimed to explore stroke and bleeding outcomes as well as the net clinical benefit (NCB) with OAC (NOAC or warfarin) and with AP-OAC combination therapy, when compared to AP alone.

Methods

Data source

This study used the “National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD)” provided by the Health and Welfare Data Science Centre (HWDC), Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW), Taiwan. The National Health Insurance (NHI) system is a mandatory universal health insurance program that offers comprehensive medical care coverage to all Taiwanese residents. NHIRD consists of detailed health care data from over 23 million enrollees, representing more than 99% of Taiwan’s population. In this cohort dataset, the patients’ original identification numbers have been encrypted to protect their privacy, but the encrypting procedure was consistent, so that a linkage of the claims belonging to the same patient was feasible within the NHI database and can be followed continuously. The descriptions about Taiwan NHIRD have been reported in our previous studies [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13].

Study population

The flowchart of patient enrollment is shown in Fig. 1. From January 1st, 2007 to December 31st, 2018, a total of 427,625 newly-diagnosed AF patients aged ≥ 20 years were identified from the NHIRD. AF was diagnosed using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes (427.31) registered by the physicians responsible for the treatments of patients. The diagnostic accuracy of AF using this definition in NHIRD has been validated previously [14]. Among these patients, 34,483 of them who experienced ischemic stroke and survived for at least 90 days thereafter have constituted the study population. The index date was defined as the date when ischemic stroke occurred. The risk of further ischemic stroke was compared between patients with (n = 6,390) or without (n = 28,093) history of ECAS.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study concept and the flowchart of the enrollment of study population. AF = atrial fibrillation; AP = anti-platelet agents; ECAS = extracranial artery stenosis NOACs = non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Full size image

Stroke prevention strategies after ischemic stroke among AF patients with history of ECAS

Among the 6,390 patients with history of ECAS, 1,136 of them who did not receive any antithrombotic treatments after ischemic stroke were excluded. The remaining 5,254 were categorized into 5 groups based on the stroke prevention strategies they received; that is, “AP” (n = 2,850), “warfarin” (n = 809), “NOAC” (n = 767), “AP plus warfarin” (n = 483) and “AP plus NOAC” (n = 345). The risks of clinical events of patients in different treatment groups were compared to those who received AP (reference group).

Calculation of scores and definitions of clinical endpoints

The calculation rules of CHA2DS2-VASc score, HAS-BLED score and the definitions of clinical endpoints have been published in our previous works [15, 16]. Notably, the component of “labile international normalized ratio (INR)” was excluded from the calculation of HAS-BLED score in the present study because the information on INR of warfarin was not available in the Taiwan registry database. Also, abnormal renal and liver function were defined by the ICD-9-CM codes rather than laboratory data.

The clinical endpoints of the present study included the occurrences of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), composite events of ischemic stroke or major bleeding, and ischemic stroke or ICH. The accuracy of diagnosis of ischemic stroke in Taiwan’s NHIRD has been reported to be around 94% [17]. Another validation study also demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of ischemic stroke in NHIRD was high, with the positive predictive value and sensitivity of 88.4% and 97.3%, respectively [18]. Major bleeding was defined as ICH or bleeding from gastrointestinal or genitourinary or respiratory tract requiring hospitalization [19]. Patients were followed up from the index date to the occurrence of mortality or December 31st, 2018, whichever occurred first.

Falsification analysis

In order to further assess the likelihood of confounding by indication, we analyzed three falsification endpoints (cellulitis, colon cancer and extremity fracture/dislocation) which were unlikely to be affected by different stroke prevention strategies. A finding of an association between different stroke prevention strategies and these falsification endpoints would therefore indicate the presence of unmeasured confounders. On the contrary, if risks of these falsification endpoints of different patient groups did not differ significantly, the differences between different stroke prevention strategies with regard to clinical outcomes in which we were interested may be less likely due to treatment selection bias.

Analysis of net clinical benefit

The NCB for different stroke prevention strategies compared with AP was calculated using the formula: (ischemic stroke rate on AP minus ischemic stroke rate on certain stroke prevention strategy) – weighting factor x (ICH rate on certain stroke prevention strategy minus ICH rate on AP). The weighting factor reflects the relative impact, in terms of death and disability, of experiencing an ICH versus experiencing an ischemic stroke [20,21,22]. The NCB with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from rate differences of ischemic stroke and ICH of the present study based on the weights previously produced and reported in the studies by Singer et al. [20], Connolly et al. [21], and Lip et al. [22]. A positive NCB favors certain stroke prevention strategy (i.e. NOACs), when compared to AP.

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as the mean value and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, and proportions for categorical variables. Differences between continuous values and nominal variables were assessed using the unpaired two-tailed t-test and chi-squared test, respectively. The incidences of clinical events were calculated from dividing the number of events by person-time at risk. The risks of adverse events were assessed using the Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex and clinical variables which were significantly different among the groups. The proportional hazards assumption was tested using Schoenfeld residual test which showed no non-proportionality. All statistical significances were set at a p < 0.05.

Results

The clinical characteristics of patients with or without ECAS are shown in Table 1. Patients with ECAS were slightly older (77.55 versus 76.75 years old, p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities, except for heart failure, compared to those without. Males were more prevalent in ECAS group. Overall, the CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 2 groups were similar (5.92 versus 5.91, p = 0.515). The risk of recurrent ischemic stroke was higher for patients with ECAS than those without (12.72%/yr versus 10.60/yr, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.104, 95% CI 1.052—1.158, p < 0.001) after a median follow-up duration of 3.49 years (interquartile range 1.52–5.60 years).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of AF patients with or without history of ECAS
Full size table

Antithrombotic strategies and clinical events in AF patients with ECAS

Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics of AF patients with ECAS receiving different antithrombotic therapies after ischemic stroke. Patients receiving AP only were older and had higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores compared to other groups.

Table 2 Baseline characteristics of patients with history of ECAS in different treatment groups
Full size table

Figure 2 shows the event rates in different CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. As expected, the risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding were higher as the scores increased. Figure 2 also demonstrates the distributions of different stroke prevention strategies in relation to different risk score points. The percentages of OAC use decreased and the proportions of “AP only” increased in groups with a higher HAS-BLED score (Fig. 2). Differently, the percentages of OAC (warfarin or NOAC) use were discordantly higher in groups with lower CHA2DS2-VASc scores (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distributions of different stroke prevention strategies in different CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. AP = anti-platelet agents; NOACs = non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Full size image

When compared to AP only (reference), NOAC monotherapy was associated with lower risks for ischaemic stroke (aHR 0.551, 95%CI 0.454—0.669), the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding (aHR 0.626, 95%CI 0.529—0.741) and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH (aHR 0.577, 95%CI 0.478—0.697), with nonsignificant difference for major bleeding and ICH (Fig. 3). With combination of AP plus NOAC, there was no difference in ischaemic stroke, ICH or the two composite outcomes when compared to AP only. The clinical outcomes of NOACs versus “AP only” were generally consistent for each of the different NOACs (interaction P values > 0.05 for each clinical events) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Risks of clinical events of patients receiving different stroke prevention strategies compared to “AP only”. AP = anti-platelet agents; HR = hazard ratio; ICH = intra-cranial hemorrhage; CI = confidence interval; NOACs = non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Risks of clinical events of patients receiving different NOACs compared to “AP only”. AP = anti-platelet agents; HR = hazard ratio; ICH = intra-cranial hemorrhage; CI = confidence interval; NOACs = non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Full size image

When compared to AP only, warfarin monotherapy was associated with higher risks of major bleeding (aHR 1.521, 95% CI 1.231—1.880), ICH (aHR 2.045, 95% CI 1.329—3.148), and the composite of ischaemic stroke and major bleeding (Fig. 3). The combination of AP plus warfarin was associated with higher risks of ischaemic stroke (aHR 1.240, 95% CI 1.061—1.450), major bleeding (aHR 1.478, 95% CI 1.190—1.837), the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding (aHR 1.285, 95% CI 1.119—1.477) and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH (aHR 1.260, 95% CI 1.082—1.468) when compared to AP only (Fig. 3).

Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis was performed to focus on patients who survived longer than 1 year after the index date and consider mortality as the competing risk in Cox regression models. The results were generally consistent to that of the principal analysis (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

NCBs of different stroke prevention strategies versus “AP only”

Table 3 summarises the NCB of different stroke prevention strategies compared to AP only. NOAC monotherapy was the only approach associated with a positive NCB (irrespective of weighting definition), while all other options (warfarin, combination AP-OACs) were associated with negative NCB.

Table 3 Net clinical benefits for each treatment according to different weight models
Full size table

Falsification analysis

The risks of 3 falsification endpoints did not differ significantly between different stroke prevention strategies compared to “AP only” (Additional file 2: Table S1). The results of falsification analyses suggested that the significant differences between different treatment groups with regard to clinical outcomes in which we were interested may be less likely due to treatment selection bias.

Discussion

In this nationwide study, our principal findings are as follows: (i) the overall risk of recurrent ischemic stroke was higher for post-stroke AF patients with ECAS than those without; (ii) when compared to AP only, NOAC monotherapy in AF patients with ECAS was associated with lower risks for ischaemic stroke, the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH. With NOAC-AP combination therapy, there were no differences in ischaemic stroke, ICH or the two composite outcomes compared to AP only. Clinical outcomes were generally consistent for each different NOACs; (iii) when compared to AP only, warfarin monotherapy in AF patients with ECAS was associated with more major bleeding, ICH and the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding. With combination of warfarin plus AP, there was an increase in ischaemic stroke, major bleeding, the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH, as well as a nonsignificant trend for more ICH; and (iv) NOAC monotherapy was the only approach associated with a positive NCB, while all other options (warfarin, combination of AP plus OACs) were associated with negative NCB.

As far as we are aware, this is the largest series of post-stroke AF patients with ECAS, where we clearly show the higher risk of recurrent ischemic stroke in post-stroke AF patients with ECAS than those without. Vascular disease is an independent predictor for ischaemic stroke in AF patients [23,24,25], although most prior studies have focused on coronary or peripheral artery disease of the lower limbs and not ECAS per se. Our study clearly highlights the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the post-stroke AF patient, to include an assessment of ECAS. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, the pooled prevalence of carotid artery stenosis in AF patients was 12.4% (95% CI 8.7–16.0%), with reported prevalence ranging from 4.4% to 24.3% [5].

In the presence of ECAS, many clinicians treat patient with AP alone, or if OAC is used, they would commonly add AP to OAC. For primary stroke prevention in AF patients with asymptomatic carotid artery disease, antiplatelet therapy is sometimes combined with OAC although evidence from large RCTs is lacking. Hence, our study provides important insights into the optimal antithrombotic therapy strategy for various clinical outcomes, in the secondary prevention setting of AF patients with ECAS. We found that NOACs monotherapy in post-stroke AF patients with ECAS was associated with lower risks for ischaemic stroke, the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH, when compared to AP only. However, when AP is added to NOAC (as the combination therapy), there was no advantage for ischaemic stroke, ICH or the two composite outcomes compared to AP only. The clinical outcomes were generally consistent for each different NOACs.

In contrast, warfarin monotherapy in AF patients with ECAS was associated with more major bleeding, ICH and the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding, but no reduction in ischaemic stroke compared to AP only. With combination of warfarin plus AP, there was a large increase in ischaemic stroke, major bleeding, the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH, as well as a trend for more ICH. This would suggest that when OAC is considered, a NOAC would be a better option compared to warfarin. Whether NOAC or warfarin was used, outcomes were less good when the OAC was used in combination with AP therapy. Indeed, the NCB analysis was positive only for NOACs, and not for other antithrombotic therapy strategies for post-stroke AF patients with ECAS.

Our observations are consistent with data in patients with stable coronary artery disease. A meta-analysis by Lee et al. found no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with AF treated with OAC plus AP compared with those treated with OAC monotherapy (HR 1.09; 95%CI 0.92 to 1.29), but combination therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding, with no significant differences in rates of stroke and all-cause death [26]. In the AFIRE trial, NOAC monotherapy (with rivaroxaban) was noninferior to combination of NOAC plus AP for efficacy and superior for safety in patients with AF and stable coronary artery disease [4].

Our findings are also reinforced by NCB analyses with different weighting models, showing NOAC monotherapy was the only antithrombotic strategy associated with a positive NCB, while other approaches including warfarin monotherapy or OAC combinations with AP were associated with a negative NCB. Another implication from our data is to reinforce that efforts to mitigate bleeding risks are particularly important once combination therapy of AP-OAC was adopted. In a prospective cluster RCT of AF patients (with or without comorbid vascular disease), the strategy of corrections of modifiable bleeding risk factors and proactive follow-up for high bleeding risk patients resulted in less major bleeding at 1 year and an increase in OAC use [27].

Also, stroke prevention is only one aspect of the integrated approach to AF care, as reflected in the ABC (Atrial fibrillation Better Care) pathway which is now recommended in guidelines [2, 28]. The ABC pathway has been shown to reduce adverse outcomes in patients with AF in various studies [29,30,31]. Given the increasing focus on the post-stroke patient and their high cardiovascular risk [32], recent attention has also been directed towards a more holistic or integrated care approach to post-stroke management, which includes appropriate antithrombotic therapy, better functional and psychological status and cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidity optimization [33].

Limitations

There are several limitations of the present study mainly owing to the nature of the database we used. First, the degree of ECAS was not recorded in our dataset, and therefore, whether the results of our study could be generalized to all patients with ECAS with different severities was unclear. Second, the diagnosis of AF and occurrence of ischemic stroke were based on the diagnostic codes registered by the physicians responsible for the treatments of patients; nonetheless, the accuracy of these diagnoses have been previously validated [14, 17, 18]. Third, information about the quality of anticoagulation control of warfarin, as reflected by the time in therapeutic range (TTR), was lacking in our dataset. In the RE-LY trial, the TTR for warfarin was only 44% in Taiwan [34], and whether well-managed warfarin could be associated with better clinical outcomes compared to AP in our study population is unclear. Also, data about the percentages of appropriate dosing of NOACs and the compliance/adherence of NOAC users were not available. The higher risk of ischemic stroke observed for the combination of “warfarin and AP” may be partly explained by an even lower international normalised ratio when clinical physicians adopted this strategy under the concern of bleeding. Furthermore, the higher risk of major bleeding with this combination may lead to the temporary discontinuation of all antithrombotic drugs once bleeding occurred which resulted in subsequent ischemic events. Fourth, since our study was an observational study rather than a randomized trial, the presence of unmeasured confounders and selection bias is highly probable which could confound the analyses. Although the results of falsification analyses may suggest that the significant differences between different treatment groups with regard to clinical outcomes in which we were interested may be less likely due to treatment selection bias, we can only report “associations” and do not imply causality. Fifth, our study was performed in an “intention to treat” design, and did not take the changes of stroke prevention strategies during the follow up into considerations. At the end of follow up, around 73.6% and 70.3% of patients initially categorized as “AP only” and “NOACs” groups were still under the same treatment, respectively. The persistence rate of NOACs was similar to that reported in prior real-word studies [35, 36] and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial [37]. Lastly, the present study only enrolled Taiwanese patients, and whether the results can be extrapolated to other populations remains uncertain. Owing to these limitations mentioned above, our findings should be regarded as “hypothesis generating” and would need to be confirmed in further large prospective randomised trials.

Conclusions

Post-stroke AF patients with ECAS are at high risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Compared to AP only, NOAC monotherapy was associated with lower risks of ischaemic stroke, the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding and the composite of ischaemic stroke/ICH, with a positive NCB. In contrast, warfarin monotherapy was associated with more major bleeding, ICH and the composite of ischaemic stroke/major bleeding. Combination of AP with NOAC or warfarin did not offer any profound benefit, but more bleeding especially with AP-warfarin combination therapy.

Availability of data and materials

Please get in touch with the corresponding authors for more information.

Abbreviations

ABC:

Atrial fibrillation better care

AF:

Atrial fibrillation

aHR:

Adjusted hazard ratio

AP:

Antiplatelet agent

CI:

Confidence interval

ECAS:

Extracranial artery stenosis

HWDC:

Health and welfare data science centre

ICD:

International classification of diseases

ICD-9-CM:

International classification of diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification

ICH:

Intracranial hemorrhage

INR:

International normalized ratio

MOHW:

Ministry of health and welfare

NCB:

Net clinical benefit

NHI:

National health insurance

NHIRD:

National health insurance research database

NOAC:

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant

OAC:

Oral anticoagulant

SD:

Standard deviation

TTR:

Time in therapeutic range

References

  1. Lip GYH, Collet JP, Haude M, Byrne R, Chung EH, Fauchier L, Halvorsen S, Lau D, Lopez-Cabanillas N, Lettino M, et al. 2018 Joint European consensus document on the management of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: a joint consensus document of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), and European Association of Acute Cardiac Care (ACCA) endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Latin America Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), and Cardiac Arrhythmia Society of Southern Africa (CASSA). Europace. 2019;21(2):192–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chao TF, Joung B, Takahashi Y, Lim TW, Choi EK, Chan YH, Guo Y, Sriratanasathavorn C, Oh S, Okumura K, et al. 2021 Focused Update Consensus Guidelines of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society on Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Executive Summary. Thromb Haemost. 2022;122(1):20–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lamberts M, Gislason GH, Lip GY, Lassen JF, Olesen JB, Mikkelsen AP, Sorensen R, Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, Hansen ML. Antiplatelet therapy for stable coronary artery disease in atrial fibrillation patients taking an oral anticoagulant: a nationwide cohort study. Circulation. 2014;129(15):1577–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yasuda S, Kaikita K, Akao M, Ako J, Matoba T, Nakamura M, Miyauchi K, Hagiwara N, Kimura K, Hirayama A, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation with Stable Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(12):1103–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Noubiap JJ, Agbaedeng TA, Tochie JN, Nkeck JR, Ndoadoumgue AL, Fitzgerald JL, Kleinig T, Thomas G, Middeldorp ME, Sanders P. Meta-Analysis Comparing the Frequency of Carotid Artery Stenosis in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Vice Versa. Am J Cardiol. 2021;138:72–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng WH, Chiang CE, Lin YJ, Chang SL, Lo LW, Hu YF, Tuan TC, Liao JN, Chung FP, Chen TJ, et al. Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Elderly (>/=85 years) Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation: Changing Clinical Practice and Outcomes for Stroke Prevention in a Nationwide Cohort Study. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96(1):52–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chao TF, Chiang CE, Chan YH, Liao JN, Chen TJ, Lip GYH, Chen SA. Oral anticoagulants in extremely-high-risk, very elderly (>90 years) patients with atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2021;18(6):871–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chao TF, Chan YH, Chiang CE, Tuan TC, Liao JN, Chen TJ, Lip GYH, Chen SA. Continuation or discontinuation of oral anticoagulants after HAS-BLED scores increase in patients with atrial fibrillation. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111(1):23–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chao TF, Chan YH, Tuan TC, Liao JN, Chen TJ, Lip GYH, Chen SA. Should oral anticoagulants still be prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation with a single stroke risk factor but at high bleeding risk? a nationwide cohort study. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2022;8(5):588–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Liao JN, Lim SS, Chen TJ, Tuan TC, Chen SA, Chao TF. Modified Taiwan Atrial Fibrillation Score for the Prediction of Incident Atrial Fibrillation. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:805399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chao TF, Chan YH, Chiang CE, Tuan TC, Liao JN, Chen TJ, Lip GYH, Chen SA. Stroke prevention with direct oral anticoagulants in high risk elderly atrial fibrillation patients at increased bleeding risk. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2022;8(7):730–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chao TF, Chiang CE, Chen TJ, Liao JN, Tuan TC, Chen SA. Clinical Risk Score for the Prediction of Incident Atrial Fibrillation: Derivation in 7 220 654 Taiwan Patients With 438 930 Incident Atrial Fibrillations During a 16-Year Follow-Up. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(17):e020194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chao TF, Chan YH, Chiang CE, Tuan TC, Liao JN, Chen TJ, Lip GY, Chen SA. Early rhythm control and the risks of ischaemic stroke, heart failure, mortality and adverse events when performed early (<3 months). Thromb Haemost. 2022;122(11):1899–910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chang CH, Lee YC, Tsai CT, Chang SN, Chung YH, Lin MS, Lin JW, Lai MS. Continuation of statin therapy and a decreased risk of atrial fibrillation/flutter in patients with and without chronic kidney disease. Atherosclerosis. 2014;232(1):224–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chao TF, Lip GYH, Lin YJ, Chang SL, Lo LW, Hu YF, Tuan TC, Liao JN, Chung FP, Chen TJ, et al. Major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage risk prediction in patients with atrial fibrillation: Attention to modifiable bleeding risk factors or use of a bleeding risk stratification score? A nationwide cohort study. Int J Cardiol. 2018;254:157–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsai CT, Liao JN, Chiang CE, Lin YJ, Chang SL, Lo LW, Hu YF, Tuan TC, Chung FP, Chao TF, et al. Association of Ischemic Stroke, Major Bleeding, and Other Adverse Events With Warfarin Use vs Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With a History of Intracranial Hemorrhage. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e206424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng CL, Kao YH, Lin SJ, Lee CH, Lai ML. Validation of the National Health Insurance Research Database with ischemic stroke cases in Taiwan. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(3):236–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hsieh CY, Chen CH, Li CY, Lai ML. Validating the diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke in a National Health Insurance claims database. J Formos Med Assoc. 2015;114(3):254–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gorog DA, Gue YX, Chao TF, Fauchier L, Ferreiro JL, Huber K, Konstantinidis SV, Lane DA, Marin F, Oldgren J, et al. Assessment and mitigation of bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A Position Paper from the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society. Europace. 2022;24(11):1844–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Singer DE, Chang Y, Fang MC, Borowsky LH, Pomernacki NK, Udaltsova N, Go AS. The net clinical benefit of warfarin anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(5):297–305.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Connolly SJ, Eikelboom JW, Ng J, Hirsh J, Yusuf S, Pogue J, de Caterina R, Hohnloser S, Hart RG, Committee AS, et al. Net clinical benefit of adding clopidogrel to aspirin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation for whom vitamin K antagonists are unsuitable. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(9):579–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lip GY, Skjoth F, Nielsen PB, Larsen TB. Non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with none or one additional risk factor of the CHA2DS2-VASc score. A comprehensive net clinical benefit analysis for warfarin, aspirin, or no therapy. Thromb Haemost. 2015;114(4):826–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chao TF, Liu CJ, Wang KL, Lin YJ, Chang SL, Lo LW, Hu YF, Tuan TC, Chen TJ, Lip GY, et al. Should atrial fibrillation patients with 1 additional risk factor of the CHA2DS2-VASc score (beyond sex) receive oral anticoagulation? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(7):635–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vitalis A, Nirantharakumar K, Thayakaran R, Vohra RK, Kay M, Shantsila A, Lip GYH. The Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on Outcomes of Peripheral Arterial Disease: Analysis of Routinely Collected Primary Care Data. Am J Med. 2022;135(4):488–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lin LY, Lee CH, Yu CC, Tsai CT, Lai LP, Hwang JJ, Chen PC, Lin JL. Risk factors and incidence of ischemic stroke in Taiwanese with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation– a nation wide database analysis. Atherosclerosis. 2011;217(1):292–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee SR, Rhee TM, Kang DY, Choi EK, Oh S, Lip GYH. Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy as an Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2019;124(6):879–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guo Y, Lane DA, Chen Y, Lip GYH, Lip GYH, m AFAIITi. Regular Bleeding Risk Assessment Associated with Reduction in Bleeding Outcomes: The mAFA-II Randomized Trial. Am J Med. 2020;133(10):1195-1202 e1192.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Boriani G, Castella M, Dan GA, Dilaveris PE, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yoon M, Yang PS, Jang E, Yu HT, Kim TH, Uhm JS, Kim JY, Sung JH, Pak HN, Lee MH, et al. Improved Population-Based Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation by Compliance with the Simple ABC (Atrial Fibrillation Better Care) Pathway for Integrated Care Management: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Thromb Haemost. 2019;119(10):1695–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Guo Y, Lane DA, Wang L, Zhang H, Wang H, Zhang W, Wen J, Xing Y, Wu F, Xia Y, et al. Mobile Health Technology to Improve Care for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(13):1523–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Guo Y, Guo J, Shi X, Yao Y, Sun Y, Xia Y, Yu B, Liu T, Chen Y, Lip GYH, et al. Mobile health technology-supported atrial fibrillation screening and integrated care: a report from the mAFA-II trial Long-term Extension Cohort. Eur J Intern Med. 2020;82:105–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Buckley BJR, Harrison SL, Hill A, Underhill P, Lane DA, Lip GYH. Stroke-Heart Syndrome: Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of Cardiac Complications Following Stroke. Stroke. 2022;53(5):1759–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lip GYH, Lane DA, Lenarczyk R, Boriani G, Doehner W, Benjamin LA, Fisher M, Lowe D, Sacco RL, Schnabel R, et al. Integrated care for optimizing the management of stroke and associated heart disease: a position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:2442–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Eikelboom J, Oldgren J, Parekh A, Pogue J, Reilly PA, Themeles E, Varrone J, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(12):1139–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Komen JJ, Heerdink ER, Klungel OH, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Forslund T, Wettermark B, Hjemdahl P. Long-term persistence and adherence with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and their associations with stroke risk. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021;7(FI1):f72–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Paquette M, Franca LR, Teutsch C, Diener HC, Lu S, Dubner SJ, Ma CS, Rothman KJ, Zint K, Halperin JL, et al. Dabigatran Persistence and Outcomes Following Discontinuation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients from the GLORIA-AF Registry. Am J Cardiol. 2020;125(3):383–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Wiviott SD, Halperin JL, Waldo AL, Ezekowitz MD, Weitz JI, Spinar J, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2093–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is based on data from the Health and Welfare Data Science Center (HWDC), Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW), Taiwan. The interpretation and conclusions contained herein do not represent those of HWDC, MOHW, Taiwan.

Funding

This work was supported in part by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 110–2314-B-075–059, MOST 111–2314-B-075–004-MY2), Taipei Veterans General Hospital (V111C-020, V112C-019), Research Foundation of Cardiovascular Medicine and Szu-Yuan Research Foundation of Internal Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Chuan-Tsai Tsai and Yi-Hsin Chan contributed equally to this work and are joint first authors.

  2. Gregory Y. H. Lip and Shih-Ann Chen are joint senior authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chuan-Tsai Tsai, Jo-Nan Liao & Tze-Fan Chao

  2. Institute of Clinical Medicine, and Cardiovascular Research Center, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chuan-Tsai Tsai, Jo-Nan Liao, Shih-Ann Chen & Tze-Fan Chao

  3. The Cardiovascular Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Yi-Hsin Chan

  4. College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Yi-Hsin Chan

  5. Microscopy Core Laboratory, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Yi-Hsin Chan

  6. Department of Family Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan

    Tzeng-Ji Chen

  7. Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool & Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK

    Gregory Y. H. Lip

  8. Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Gregory Y. H. Lip

  9. Cardiovascular Center, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    Shih-Ann Chen

Authors
  1. Chuan-Tsai Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Hsin Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jo-Nan Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tzeng-Ji Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory Y. H. Lip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shih-Ann Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tze-Fan Chao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CTT, TFC, GYHL and SAC contributed to study concept and design. Acquisition of data was performed by TJC and YHC. Data was analyzed and interpreted by TFC, GYHL and SAC. Draft of the manuscript was written by CTT, TFC, and GYHL. The manuscript for important intellectual content was revised critically by GYHL and SAC. Statistical analysis was performed by TFC and JNL. Study was supervised by GYHL and SAC. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tze-Fan Chao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan (2022–08-014BC). Informed consent was waived because of anonymous data.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Fig. S1. Risks of clinical events of patients receiving different stroke prevention strategies compared to “AP” only excluding patients experiencing mortality within 1 year and adjusting “mortality” as the competing risk.

Additional file 2:

Table S1. Risks of 3 falsification endpoints of patients receiving different stroke prevention strategies compared to “AP only”.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsai, CT., Chan, YH., Liao, JN. et al. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for post-stroke patients with atrial fibrillation and extracranial artery stenosis—a nationwide cohort study. BMC Med 22, 113 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03338-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03338-7

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us