Overestimation of anticoagulant benefit in patients with atrial fibrillation and low life expectancy: evidence from 12 randomized trials

Sachin J. Shah, Carl van Walraven, Sun Young Jeon, W. John Boscardin, FD Richard Hobbs, Stuart Connolly, Michael Ezekowitz, Kenneth E. Covinsky, Margaret C. Fang, Daniel E. Singer
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.10.23285303

ABSTRACT

Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a high rate of all-cause mortality that is only partially attributable to vascular outcomes. While the competing risk of death may affect expected anticoagulant benefit, guidelines do not account for it. We sought to determine if using a competing risks framework materially affects the guideline-endorsed estimate of absolute risk reduction attributable to anticoagulants.

Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of 12 RCTs that randomized patients with AF to oral anticoagulants or either placebo or antiplatelets. For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of anticoagulants to prevent stroke or systemic embolism using two methods. First, we estimated the ARR using a guideline-endorsed model (CHA2DS2-VASc) and then again using a Competing Risk Model that uses the same inputs as CHA2DS2-VASc but accounts for the competing risk of death and allows for non-linear growth in benefit over time. We compared the absolute and relative differences in estimated benefit and whether the differences in estimated benefit varied by life expectancy.

Results 7933 participants had a median life expectancy of 8 years (IQR 6, 12), determined by comorbidity-adjusted life tables. 43% were randomized to oral anticoagulation (median age 73 years, 36% women). The guideline-endorsed CHA2DS2-VASc model estimated a larger ARR than the Competing Risk Model (median ARR at 3 years, 6.9% vs. 5.2%). ARR differences varied by life expectancies: for those with life expectancies in the highest decile, 3-year ARR difference (CHA2DS2-VASc model – Competing Risk Model 3-year risk) was −1.2% (42% relative underestimation); for those with life expectancies in the lowest decile, 3-year ARR difference was 5.9% (91% relative overestimation).

Conclusion Anticoagulants were exceptionally effective at reduced stroke risk. However, anticoagulant benefits were misestimated with CHA2DS2-VASc, which does not account for the competing risk of death nor decelerating treatment benefit over time. Overestimation was most pronounced in patients with the lowest life expectancy and when benefit was estimated over a multi-year horizon.

INTRODUCTION

Anticoagulants are the mainstay of preventative therapy for millions of older adults with atrial fibrillation. While anticoagulants reduce the risk of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism, they also increase the risk of bleeding. To help patients and clinicians weigh the risks and benefits of treatment, clinical guidelines and decision support tools endorse using the CHA2DS2-VASc score to estimate a patient’s annual risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism without treatment.1–5 The ACC/AHA/HRS consensus guidelines recommend that this baseline risk be used to estimate a patient’s expected absolute risk reduction by applying the relative risk reduction from a meta-analysis of randomized trials.1,6 Guidelines recommend anticoagulant therapy when the absolute risk reduction exceeds a threshold. The premise is that treatment benefits outweigh risks when an individual’s estimated event risk exceeds this threshold.

While transparent, this approach makes two assumptions that can affect the accuracy of expected benefit. First, this approach does not account for the competing risk of death. A competing risk is an alternative outcome that occurs before, and necessarily precludes, the event of interest (e.g., cancer death before stroke from atrial fibrillation), thus limiting the absolute benefit achievable by anticoagulant treatment.7–11 Competing risks are germane given the high all-cause mortality rate following a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation—multiple studies estimate 20-25% mortality in the first year.12–14 Second, this approach assumes that the therapeutic benefit continues to increase at a constant rate over time—that is, the risk of stroke over two years is twice the one-year risk and thus the absolute risk reduction over two years is twice the one-year absolute risk reduction. Both issues are readily addressed by estimating benefit using a competing risk model; however, it is unknown if doing so will materially affect absolute risk reduction estimates attributable to anticoagulants.

We used patient-level data from 12 randomized trials of anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation to determine if a competing risk model affects the measurement of absolute stroke risk reduction. First, we compared the guideline-endorsed approach to measuring absolute risk reduction (i.e., CHA2DS2-VASc score) to a competing risk model (i.e., Fine-Gray model15). Second, we determined if differences in expected stroke risk reduction between the guideline-endorse CHA2DS2-VASc approach and a competing risk model varied by life expectancy.

METHODS

Study design and participants

We used patient-level data from the Atrial Fibrillation Investigators (AFI) database which contains patient-level data from 12 published clinical trials where patients were randomized to full-dose oral anticoagulant, antiplatelets, or placebo. We focused on trials that established the efficacy of oral anticoagulants; therefore, we did not include trials that compared two different oral anticoagulants. We included the following trials: Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin, and Anticoagulation Study 1 (AFASAK-1),16 AFASAK-2,17 Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation (BAATAF),18 Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study (BAFTA),19 Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Anticoagulation (CAFA),20 European Atrial Fibrillation Trial (EAFT),21 Primary Prevention of Arterial Thromboembolism in Atrial Fibrillation (PAATAF),22 National Study for Prevention of Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation (NASPEAF),23 the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation 1 (SPAF-1),24 SPAF-2,25 SPAF-3,26 and Stroke Prevention in Non-rheumatic Atrial Fibrillation (SPINAF).27 We did not include patients with mitral stenosis and patients in SPAF-1, EAFT, PATAF, and SPAF-3 who were deemed ineligible to receive anticoagulants (trial details in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2).

Participant characteristics

Research coordinators and physicians collected patient characteristics before therapy initiation. While specific features varied from study to study, common elements included a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, hypertension or systolic blood pressure ≥160 mmHg or use of antihypertensives, diabetes, angina, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, smoking, and congestive heart failure, and body mass index. History of myocardial infarction was not collected in NASPEAF and peripheral vascular disease was not collected in AFASAK1, BAATAF, or BAFTA. Because history of myocardial infarction and peripheral vascular disease were missing for all participants in specific trials, we assumed they were missing at random and imputed them in 20 datasets using chained equations.28 We excluded <1% of participants who were missing data otherwise collected in a given trial (Appendix 3).

Treatment exposure

We examined all patients based on their treatment allocation (i.e., intention to treat). Because studies have shown that antiplatelet and low-dose warfarin are ineffective thromboprophylaxis in AF,6 we categorized all trial participants as being randomized to full-dose anticoagulants or control. Patients randomized to placebo, antiplatelets, low-dose warfarin, or low-dose warfarin with aspirin were considered controls. AFASAK2, PAATAF, and SPAF3 used low-dose warfarin and reported a mean international normalized ratio (INR) of < 1.5 supporting their categorization as a control. While NASPEAF also had a low-dose anticoagulant arm, the mean INR was 2.0 which is considered therapeutic1; therefore, we excluded participants randomized to the NASPEAF low-dose anticoagulant arm.

Outcome ascertainment

The primary outcome was ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. We detail outcome definitions by trial in Appendix 4. In general, trials defined ischemic stroke as a focal neurological deficit lasting >24 hours. All trials except AFASAK-1 required a CT or MRI showing the absence of blood. Systemic embolism was collected as an outcome in all but SPINAF and, by and large, defined as an embolism to internal organs or limbs and required evidence via angiography, surgery, or autopsy (Appendix 4). Patients were evaluated at 3- to 6-month intervals or when a clinical outcome event was suspected. Except in AFASAK-1, a central committee, blinded to intervention allocation, adjudicated all clinical events.

Life expectancy

We estimated the life expectancy of each participant at the time of trial enrollment using the life table method.29 We started with gender- and enrollment year-specific life tables from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.30 These tables, generated from population data, predict annual mortality rates stratified by age, sex, and year. The life table method uses annual mortality rates to calculate life expectancy. We used the life table method to estimate each participant’s life expectancy by adjusting the annual mortality rate for the additional mortality risk associated with their comorbidities at the time of trial enrollment (Appendix 5).

Analysis

Our first analytic goal was to determine if using a competing risk framework generates estimates of stroke risk reduction different from those of the guideline-endorsed CHA2DS2-VASc model. To accomplish this and speak directly to guideline-recommended practice, we estimated absolute risk reduction using the CHA2DS2-VASc score as the ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines recommend.1,2 Specifically, we assigned each patient an off-treatment risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism corresponding to their CHA2DS2-VASc score. Rates come from the 2012 study by Friberg et al., which used the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort to validate off-treatment thromboembolic rates corresponding to each CHA2DS2-VASc score.31 These rates are used in patient-facing decision tools, online calculators, and decision analytic models.5,32,33 To calculate the absolute risk reduction, we multiplied the off-treatment stroke rate by 0.64, the guideline-cited efficacy of anticoagulants.1,6 Using this procedure for each patient, we estimated the annual absolute risk reduction; this precise method is endorsed by the ACC/AHA/HRS Atrial Fibrillation management guidelines to estimate benefit.1 Because patients and physicians prefer to make anticoagulant decisions using a 1-to-5-year time horizon,5 we extrapolated this annual reduction over five years, accounting for the declining at-risk population (Appendix 6).34,35 The same approach is also used in decision aids.5

Next, we estimated the absolute risk reduction using the Fine-Gray extension of the Cox proportional hazards model, treating death unrelated to ischemic stroke or systemic embolism as a competing event.11 We fit a Fine-Gray model where time to ischemic stroke or systemic embolism is a function of age (<65 years, 65-74 years, >75years), gender, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, and vascular disease stratified by randomization to oral anticoagulants. These the same predictors used in the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Then, we used the resulting treatment-stratified models to estimate the cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for each participant given their covariates at each study time point, assuming first they had been randomized to oral anticoagulants and then assuming they had been randomized to control (i.e., predicted values).36,37 The difference between the two estimates represented the ARR for a given patient at a given time point. We determined the misestimation of the CHA2DS2-VASc method as the difference between the ARR estimated by CHA2DS2-VASc and the ARR estimated by the Competing Risk Model. We used the paired t-test to determine if the two methods produced statistically different estimates of benefit at each year after randomization.

Our second analytic goal was to determine if life expectancy predicted magnitude in the CHA2DS2-VASc model misestimation. To achieve this, we determined the association between life expectancy and misestimation of the CHA2DS2-VASc method over a 3-year horizon. We chose 3 years since it is the midpoint between the 1-to-5 year horizon preferred by patients and physicians and has been used in prior anticoagulation decision analyses.5,38 We examined misestimation of the CHA2DS2-VASc method by decile of life expectancy at trial enrollment, hypothesizing that the misestimation would be greater at lower life expectancies.

We performed all statistical analyses using SAS 9.4 (Cary, NC). The study protocol was approved by Institutional Review Boards at UCSF (21-34930) and MGH (2022P001783).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics and overall event rates

This study included 7933 patients from 12 randomized trials where 3407 (43%) were randomized to oral anticoagulation (Table 1). The median age was 73 years at enrollment, 36% were women, and the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3 [IQR 2, 4]. At enrollment, the median life expectancy was 8 years [IQR 6, 12] (Appendix 7). Most patients (83%) ended the follow-up period without a clinical event (median 731 days; IQR 415, 1025). (Table 2). In these trials, 530 (7%) patients’ first clinical event was an ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (median 334 days; IQR 120, 580). Additionally, 630 (8%) patients died before a stroke or systemic embolism (median 457 days; IQR 216, 772).

View this table:
Table 1: Characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation in 12 randomized trials

AFASAK - Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin, and Anticoagulation Study; BAATAF - Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation; BAFTA - Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study; CAFA - Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Anticoagulation; EAFT - European Atrial Fibrillation Trial; PAATAF - Primary Prevention of Arterial Thromboembolism in Atrial Fibrillation; NASPEAF - National Study for Prevention of Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation; SPAF - Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation; SPINAF - Stroke Prevention in Non-rheumatic Atrial Fibrillation

* History of myocardial infarction was not available for NSPEAF trial participants

† History of peripheral vascular disease was not available for AFASAK1, BAATAF, or BAFTA trial participants

‡ Height and weight were not available for BAATAF or AFASAK2 trial participants

§ Smoking status was not available for AFASAK1, CAFA, or BAFTA participants. In EAFT, data collection did not distinguish between former and never smokers.

CHA2DS2-VASc scores are for those with complete cases. It excludes 2395 participants enrolled in trials where peripheral vascular disease data are not available, and 543 participants enrolled in trials where history of myocardial infarction was not available.

¶ Control includes those assigned placebo, aspirin, low-dose warfarin, or low-dose warfarin an aspirin. Patients enrolled in SPAF3 and AFASAK2 and assigned to low-dose warfarin had a mean internal normalized ratio (INR) of < 1.5 supporting their categorization as a control. Patients enrolled in NASPEAF and randomized to low-dose anticoagulant had a mean INR of 2.0 and were therefore not included as a control. Since missing data were missing for entire trials, they were assumed to be missing completely at random.

View this table:
Table 2: Trial outcomes, rates and follow-up time

Comparison of absolute risk reduction estimates

Relative to the Competing Risk Model, the CHA2DS2-VASc model overestimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of anticoagulants (Figure 1). As the time horizon increased, the CHA2DS2-VASc estimate of median benefit increased linearly. In contrast, the Competing Risk Model estimated a non-linear absolute risk reduction over time—while benefit increased over time, it decelerated, i.e., absolute risk reduction grew by less each year. As a result, the CHA2DS2-VASc model overestimated anticoagulation benefit as the time-horizon increased. After 1 year, the CHA2DS2-VASc model and the Competing Risk Model produced clinically similar estimates of absolute risk reduction (median ARR 2.3% by CHA2DS2-VASc estimate vs. 2.4% by Competing Risk Model, p<0.001). After 3 years, the CHA2DS2-VASc-based ARR was clinically and statistically larger than the ARR from the Competing Risk Model (median ARR 6.9% vs. 5.2%, p<0.001). This difference increased when absolute risk reduction was estimated over a 5-year horizon (median ARR 11.2% vs. 6.3%, p<0.001).

Figure 1:
Figure 1: Estimated median absolute risk reduction by CHA2DS2-VASc model compared with Competing Risk Model

For each patient in the cohort, we estimate the absolute risk reduction attributable to oral anticoagulation annually for 5 years using the CHA2DS2-VASc model and again using a Fine-Gray model, a survival model that accounts for the competing risk of death. We plot the median benefit at each time point. We graphed the median ARR because the CHA2DS2-VASc model produces discrete estimates of benefit (i.e., not normally distributed). Data are presented as a table in Appendix 10. Component on- and off-treatment cumulative incidence rates also displayed in Appendix 10.

We assess whether the observed discrepancy in ARR could be because the guidelines estimate of off-treatment stroke risk were produced in an external cohort and therefore were miscalibrated (Appendix 9). The sensitivity showed that recalibration to the AFI database did not meaningfully change the results presented in Figure 1.

Life expectancy and misestimation of benefit

As life expectancy decreased, the CHA2DS2-VASc model increasingly overestimated the stroke and systemic embolism risk reduction attributable to anticoagulants in absolute and relative terms (Figure 2). The figure plots the absolute and relative difference between the 3-year ARR estimated by the CHA2DS2-VASc model and the Competing Risk Model by life expectancy decile at trial enrollment. In the decile with the highest life expectancy (16 to 47 years), on average, over 3 years, the CHA2DS2-VASc model underestimated benefit by 1.2% (95% CI 1.1% to 1.3%) in absolute terms and 42% (95% CI 40% to 45%) in relative terms. By comparison, in the decile with the lowest life expectancy (1 to 4 years), on average over 3 years, the CHA2DS2-VASc model overestimated benefit by 5.9% (95% CI 5.6% to 6.1%) in absolute terms and 91% (95% CI 87% to 95%) in relative terms.

Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Figure 2: Misestimation of Stroke Risk Reduction by CHA2DS2-VASc score at 3 years,

Absolute misestimation is defined as: ARRCHA2DS2-VASc – ARRCompeting Risk Model. Relative misestimation is defined as: ARRCHA2DS2-VASc / ARRCompeting Risk Model – 1.

The dot represents the mean overestimation, and the error bars represent the 95% confidence interval of the mean. The misestimation of absolute risk reduction (ARR) is calculated for each patient as the difference between the ARR computed by the CHA2DS2-VASc score and the ARR computed by the Fine-Gray model, a survival model that accounts for the competing risk of death. Positive numbers represent the overestimation of the CHA2DS2-VASc model. Tabular results can be found in Appendix 11.

DISCUSSION

Using patient-level data from 12 randomized trials, we demonstrated that while anticoagulants effectively reduce ischemic stroke and systemic embolism risk, failing to use a competing risks framework resulted in a meaningful overestimation of treatment benefit. This finding was most pronounced when risk reduction was estimated over a multi-year horizon. Further, we showed that as life expectancy decreased, treatment benefit was increasingly overestimated. While those with the highest life expectancy may benefit more than guideline estimates would suggest, benefit for those with the lowest life expectancy was strikingly overestimated.

The study results directly apply to the AHA/ACC/HRS1,2 and European Society of Cardiology (ESC)3 atrial fibrillation guidelines in which the cornerstone of anticoagulant decision-making is estimating the absolute risk reduction. Guidelines ask clinicians to estimate the off-treatment stroke risk using the CHA2DS2-VASc score and to use that baseline risk to infer the probable absolute risk reduction. Anticoagulants are recommended above a CHA2DS2-VASc score threshold—i.e., when the absolute risk reduction exceeds a threshold. Thus, if clinical guidelines continue to recommend treatment using an absolute risk reduction threshold, these results suggest guidelines should re-estimate benefit using a competing risk framework. At the very least, guidelines should acknowledge that current methods overestimate benefits for those with limited life expectancy and when estimating benefits over a multi-year horizon.

The current study’s findings should influence anticoagulant decision aids for patients with atrial fibrillation. To advance anticoagulant shared decision-making, investigators and professional societies have developed conversation aids that display a patient’s risk of stroke with and without anticoagulants. For example, the American College of Cardiology’s CardioSmart tool and the Mayo Clinic Anticoagulation Choice Decision Aid both display a pictogram of absolute risk with and without treatment to communicate treatment effects.4,5 These implementation tools are built to reflect clinical guidelines and do so faithfully. However, both should note that benefit estimates are overstated for those with limited life expectancy and when benefit is estimated over a multi-year horizon.

These results also lend credence to physicians for whom advanced age, frailty, and function—all significant determinants of life expectancy—factor in their anticoagulant decision-making.39,40 Adults aged 65 years and older constitute 80% of all American adults with atrial fibrillation.41 Further, prior work indicates that many older adults with atrial fibrillation have geriatric syndromes (e.g., dependency in activities of daily living) known to be associated with a reduced life expectancy.42,43 In this study, we estimated life expectancy using basic medical comorbidity data available in the trial database. Modern, more accurate tools go beyond comorbidities using physical function, cognition, and self-reported health to estimate life expectancy.44,45 Life expectancy estimates from such tools are routinely used to inform the risk and benefits of interventions in older adults (e.g., cancer screening). Until guidelines formally account for it, clinicians may consider using life expectancy to guide the discussion about the benefit of anticoagulants when treating older adults. This may be particularly relevant when treating patients with both a limited life expectancy and borderline CHA2DS2-VASc scores.

Finally, these findings should inform the methods used to develop and validate future stroke risk models. While the CHA2DS2-VASc score continues to be endorsed by U.S. and European guidelines, investigators are actively developing a new generation of stroke risk prediction models. Contemporary models like the ABC stroke risk score, CARS, and the ATRIA stroke model all outperform the CHA2DS2-VASc score.46–48 However, none used an analysis framework that both accounts for the competing risk of death and changing risk over a multi-year horizon. The ABC model establishes a non-linear stroke risk by showing 3-year risk is not simply three times the 1-year risk, findings that were redemonstrated in this paper. When developing the ABC model, Hijazi et al. also conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing their model to a competing risk model.46 They found a tight correlation when risk was estimated over a 1-year horizon, results mirrored in this study. We expanded on their work by showing that this correlation was weaker when using a longer time horizon (e.g., 3 years). More importantly, we identified substantial heterogeneity—as life expectancy decreased, overestimation increased.

There are limitations to this study inherent to the data available and the study design. First, this study relied on data from RCTs conducted between 1989 and 2007 and thus may be only partially representative of contemporary patients with atrial fibrillation. Specific differences include the risk of stroke and death from non-atrial fibrillation causes and the added safety of direct-acting anticoagulants.49 This limitation is balanced by the fact that the AFI cohort is one of the largest patient-level atrial fibrillation cohorts where anticoagulant treatment was randomized against placebo and antiplatelets. The results were unaffected by selection bias that hampers contemporary risk models developed in observational cohorts. More importantly, while dated, these trials are the foundation upon which current guidelines recommend anticoagulants. Second, this study could not address the relationship between life expectancy and the potential misestimation of anticoagulant harm. Specifically, the AF Investigators database does not include inputs used in contemporary hemorrhage prediction tools (e.g., ATRIA bleed, HAS-BLED). While it is important to consider the effect a competing risk framework may have on estimating the risk of bleeding, current guidelines do not incorporate bleeding risk into treatment recommendations. For example, for patients with scores above the CHA2DS2-VASc treatment threshold, guideline recommendations do not change whether the bleeding risk is high or low. Finally, because nationality was unavailable for study participants, we relied on U.S. life tables to calculate life expectancy.

In summary, we showed that while oral anticoagulants were clearly effective, treatment benefit was overstated when using the guideline-endorsed approach because guidelines do not account for the competing risk of death and assume a constant growth in treatment benefit over time. Overestimation was most pronounced in patients with the lowest life expectancy and when benefit was estimated over a multi-year horizon. These findings should inform guidelines and decision aids, clinicians treating patients with limited life expectancy, and investigators developing stroke risk prediction models.

Data Availability

Researchers can apply to the AF Investigators for data access.

Author contributions

Dr. Shah had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors, and all those who are qualified to be authors are listed in the author byline.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Dr. Shah, Dr. Jeon, Dr. Boscardin, and Dr. Covinsky reported funding from the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health related to the conduct of this study (noted below). Dr. Fang reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study (K24HL141354) and grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Singer was supported, in part, by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman Fund of Massachusetts General Hospital. He has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Medtronic, and Pfizer. Professor Hobbs is, in part, supported by the NIHR (ARC OTV and MIC) and has received occasional consultancy fees from Bayer, BMS Pfizer, Novartis, and AZ unconnected to this study.

Funding

This study was funded by the NIA (K76AG074919, P30AG044281).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor

The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data sharing

Researchers can apply to the AF Investigators for data access.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dr. Sei Lee, Professor of Medicine at UCSF, for his valuable methodological feedback. Dr. Shah had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • updated abstract

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(21):e1–e76. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.03.022
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    January C, Wann L. Samuel, Calkins Hugh, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in Collaboration With the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2019;140(2):e125–e151. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000665
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, 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). Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373–498. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Atrial Fibrillation | CardioSmart – American College of Cardiology. CardioSmart. Accessed December 23, 2020. http://www.cardiosmart.org/topics/atrial-fibrillation
  5. 5.↵
    Zeballos-Palacios CL, Hargraves IG, Noseworthy PA, et al. Developing a Conversation Aid to Support Shared Decision Making: Reflections on Designing Anticoagulation Choice. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(4):686–696. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.08.030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic Therapy to Prevent Stroke in Patients Who Have Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(12):857–867. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Austin PC, Fine JP. Accounting for competing risks in randomized controlled trials: a review and recommendations for improvement. Stat Med. 2017;36(8):1203–1209. doi:10.1002/sim.7215
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    Koller MT, Raatz H, Steyerberg EW, Wolbers M. Competing risks and the clinical community: irrelevance or ignorance? Stat Med. 2012;31(11-12):1089–1097. doi:10.1002/sim.4384
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    Satagopan JM, Ben-Porat L, Berwick M, Robson M, Kutler D, Auerbach AD. A note on competing risks in survival data analysis. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(7):1229–1235. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.
    Berry SD, Ngo L, Samelson EJ, Kiel DP. Competing Risk of Death: An Important Consideration in Studies of Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(4):783–787. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02767.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Austin Peter C., Lee Douglas S., Fine Jason P. Introduction to the Analysis of Survival Data in the Presence of Competing Risks. Circulation. 2016;133(6):601–609. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Benjamin EJ, Wolf PA, D’Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB, Levy D. Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on the Risk of Death: The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 1998;98(10):946–952. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.98.10.946
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.
    Piccini Jonathan P., Hammill Bradley G., Sinner Moritz F., et al. Incidence and Prevalence of Atrial Fibrillation and Associated Mortality Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 1993–2007. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(1):85–93. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.962688
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Siontis KC, Gersh BJ, Weston SA, et al. Associations of Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery With Stroke, Subsequent Arrhythmia, and Death: A Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. Published online July 26, 2022:M22–0434. doi:10.7326/M22-0434
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    Fine JP, Gray RJ. A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496–509. doi:10.2307/2670170
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    Petersen P, Godtfredsen J, Boysen G, Andersen E, Andersen B. PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMISED TRIAL OF WARFARIN AND ASPIRIN FOR PREVENTION OF THROMBOEMBOLIC COMPLICATIONS IN CHRONIC ATRIAL FIBRILLATION: The Copenhagen AFASAK Study. The Lancet. 1989;333(8631):175–179. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(89)91200-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    Gulløv AL, Koefoed BG, Petersen P, et al. Fixed Minidose Warfarin and Aspirin Alone and in Combination vs Adjusted-Dose Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Second Copenhagen Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin, and Anticoagulation Study. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(14):1513–1521. doi:10.1001/archinte.158.14.1513
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators, Singer DE, Hughes RA, et al. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(22):1505–1511. doi:10.1056/NEJM199011293232201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    Mant J, Hobbs FR, Fletcher K, et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2007;370(9586):493–503. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61233-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Connolly SJ, Laupacis A, Gent M, Roberts RS, Cairns JA, Joyner C. Canadian atrial fibrillation anticoaguiation (CAFA) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18(2):349–355. doi:10.1016/0735-1097(91)90585-W
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    EAFT (European Atrial Fibrillation Trial) Study Group. Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke. The Lancet. 1993;342(8882):1255–1262. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92358-Z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    Hellemons BSP, Langenberg M, Lodder J, et al. Primary prevention of arterial thromboembolism in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in primary care: randomised controlled trial comparing two intensities of coumarin with aspirin. BMJ. 1999;319(7215):958–964. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7215.958
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Pérez-Gómez F, Alegría E, Berjón J, et al. Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(8):1557–1566. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.05.084
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Preliminary Report of the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Study. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(12):863–868. doi:10.1056/NEJM199003223221232
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Warfarin versus aspirin for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation II Study. The Lancet. 1994;343(8899):687–691. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(94)91577-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Adjusted-dose warfarin versus low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin plus aspirin for high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation III randomised clinical trial. The Lancet. 1996;348(9028):633–638. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03487-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Ezekowitz MD, Bridgers SL, James KE, et al. Warfarin in the prevention of stroke associated with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. Veterans Affairs Stroke Prevention in Nonrheumatic Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(20):1406–1412. doi:10.1056/NEJM199211123272002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377–399. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Method for Constructing Complete Annual U.S. Life Tables. National Center for Health Statistics; 1999:36.
  30. 30.↵
    The Berkeley Mortality Database. Accessed November 3, 2021. http://bmd.mortality.org/
  31. 31.↵
    Friberg L, Rosenqvist M, Lip GYH. Evaluation of risk stratification schemes for ischaemic stroke and bleeding in 182 678 patients with atrial fibrillation: the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(12):1500–1510. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr488
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    CHA2DS2-VASc Score for Atrial Fibrillation Stroke Risk - MDCalc. Accessed October 11, 2022. https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/801/cha2ds2-vasc-score-atrial-fibrillation-stroke-risk
  33. 33.↵
    Eckman MH, Wise RE, Naylor K, et al. Developing an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) for shared decision making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(4):603–614. doi:10.1185/03007995.2015.1019608
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Miller DK, Homan SM. Determining Transition Probabilities: Confusion and Suggestions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14(1):52–58. doi:10.1177/0272989X9401400107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    Rothman KJ. Epidemiology: An Introduction. Oxford University Press; 2002. https://books.google.com/books?id=f3gItAEACAAJ
  36. 36.↵
    Bieler GS, Brown GG, Williams RL, Brogan DJ. Estimating Model-Adjusted Risks, Risk Differences, and Risk Ratios From Complex Survey Data. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(5):618–623. doi:10.1093/aje/kwp440
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Graubard BI, Korn EL. Predictive Margins with Survey Data. Biometrics. 1999;55(2):652–659. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00652.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Shah Sachin J., Singer Daniel E., Fang Margaret C., Reynolds Kristi, Go Alan S., Eckman Mark H. Net Clinical Benefit of Oral Anticoagulation Among Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(11):e006212. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006212
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Ashburner JM, Atlas SJ, Khurshid S, et al. Electronic physician notifications to improve guideline-based anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. Published online August 3, 2018. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4612-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    McGrath ER, Go AS, Chang Y, et al. Use of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Older Adults with Atrial Fibrillation After Acute Ischemic Stroke. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(2):241–248. doi:10.1111/jgs.14688
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    Go AS, Hylek EM, Phillips KA, et al. Prevalence of Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Adults: National Implications for Rhythm Management and Stroke Prevention: the AnTicoagulation and Risk Factors In Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study. JAMA. 2001;285(18):2370–2375. doi:10.1001/jama.285.18.2370
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    Shah SJ, Fang MC, Jeon SY, Gregorich SE, Covinsky KE. Geriatric Syndromes and Atrial Fibrillation: Prevalence and Association with Anticoagulant Use in a National Cohort of Older Americans. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(2):349–356. doi:10.1111/jgs.16822
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    Kane RL, Shamliyan T, Talley K, Pacala J. The Association Between Geriatric Syndromes and Survival. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(5):896–904. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03942.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Lee SJ, Lindquist K, Segal MR, Covinsky KE. Development and Validation of a Prognostic Index for 4-Year Mortality in Older Adults. JAMA. 2006;295(7):801–808. doi:10.1001/jama.295.7.801
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    Schonberg MA, Davis RB, McCarthy EP, Marcantonio ER. Index to Predict 5-Year Mortality of Community-Dwelling Adults Aged 65 and Older Using Data from the National Health Interview Survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(10):1115–1122. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1073-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    Hijazi Z, Lindbäck J, Alexander JH, et al. The ABC (age, biomarkers, clinical history) stroke risk score: a biomarker-based risk score for predicting stroke in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(20):1582–1590. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw054
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.
    Lee CJY, Toft-Petersen AP, Ozenne B, et al. Assessing absolute stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation using a risk factor-based approach. Eur Heart J - Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021;7(FI1):f3–f10. doi:10.1093/ehjcvp/pvaa063
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Singer DE, Chang Y, Borowsky LH, et al. A New Risk Scheme to Predict Ischemic Stroke and Other Thromboembolism in Atrial Fibrillation: The ATRIA Study Stroke Risk Score. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(3):e000250. doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000250
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. The Lancet. 2014;383(9921):955–962.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted June 02, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Overestimation of anticoagulant benefit in patients with atrial fibrillation and low life expectancy: evidence from 12 randomized trials
Sachin J. Shah, Carl van Walraven, Sun Young Jeon, W. John Boscardin, FD Richard Hobbs, Stuart Connolly, Michael Ezekowitz, Kenneth E. Covinsky, Margaret C. Fang, Daniel E. Singer
medRxiv 2023.02.10.23285303; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.10.23285303
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area