Background
Limited real-world data are available regarding the outcome of patients treated with inappropriate dose of nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).
Objective
To assess the prevalence and factors associated with inappropriate dose prescription of NOACs and to evaluate adverse events that come from this inappropriate prescription.
Methods
Single-center multidisciplinary registry including nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with NOACs. Based on guidelines criteria for dose reduction, two subcohorts were defined as treated with appropriate or inappropriate NOACs dose. Primary efficacy endpoint was 2-year rate of thromboembolic events. Primary safety endpoint was 2-year rate of major bleeding. Event-free survival curves among groups were compared using Cox–Mantel test.
Results
A total of 760 nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients were included; 32% patients were treated with dabigatran, 34% with apixaban, 24% with rivaroxaban and 10% with edoxaban. An inappropriate dose was prescribed in 96 patients (12.6%), and in most cases (68%) it was too low. Rivaroxaban (15%) and apixaban (18.5%) were the most frequently prescribed with an inappropriate dose. Patients treated with an inappropriate dose were elderly people, with low-creatinine clearance value, who had experienced previous bleeding and with a high CHADS2 VASc score. In 2 years, a trend for higher numbers of thromboembolic events (5.2 vs. 3.3%, P = 0.348) and less major bleeding (2.1 vs. 4.2%, P = 0.316) has been observed in patients with inappropriate NOACs prescriptions.
Conclusion
Nearly 13% of patients were treated with an inappropriate dose of NOACs, in this single-center study. A trend for higher numbers of thromboembolic events was observed in these patients. The results should be considered as hypothesis generating.
Myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is a heterogeneous group of clinical entities characterized by clinical evidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with normal or near-normal coronary arteries on coronary angiography (stenosis < 50%) and without an over the alternative diagnosis for the acute presentation. Its prevalence ranges from 6% to 11% among all patients with AMI, with a predominance of young, nonwhite females with fewer traditional risks than those with an obstructive coronary artery disease (MI-CAD). MINOCA can be due to either epicardial causes such as rupture or fissuring of unstable nonobstructive atherosclerotic plaque, coronary artery spasm, spontaneous coronary dissection and cardioembolism in-situ or microvascular causes. Besides, also type-2 AMI due to supply-demand mismatch and Takotsubo syndrome must be considered as a possible MINOCA cause. Because of the complex etiology and a limited amount of evidence, there is still some confusion around the management and treatment of these patients. Therefore, the key focus of this condition is to identify the underlying individual mechanisms to achieve patient-specific treatments. Clinical history, electrocardiogram, echocardiography, and coronary angiography represent the first-level diagnostic investigations, but coronary imaging with intravascular ultrasound and optical coherent tomography, coronary physiology testing, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging offer additional information to understand the underlying cause of MINOCA. Although the prognosis is slightly better compared with MI-CAD patients, MINOCA is not always benign and depends on the etiopathology. This review analyzes all possible pathophysiological mechanisms that could lead to MINOCA and provides the most specific and appropriate therapeutic approach in each scenario.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.