Journal article
Two-year outcomes of UK patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: findings from the prospective observational cohort study GARFIELD-AF
- Abstract:
-
Background
The outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) following the introduction of direct-acting oral anticoagulants are not well known.
Aim
To determine the 2-year outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with AF, and the effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in everyday practice.
Design and setting
This was a prospective observational cohort study in UK primary care.
Method
In total, 3574 patients aged ≥18 years with a new AF diagnosis were enrolled. A propensity score was applied using an overlap weighting scheme to obtain unbiased estimates of the treatment effect of anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation on the occurrence of death, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding within 2 years of diagnosis.
Results
Overall, 65.8% received anticoagulant therapy, 20.8% received an antiplatelet only, and 13.4% received neither. During the study period, the overall incidence rates of all-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 4.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.69 to 4.65), 1.45 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.77), and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.50) per 100 person–years, respectively. Anticoagulation treatment compared with no anticoagulation treatment was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.70 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.93), significantly lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (aHR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62), and a non-significant higher risk of major bleeding (aHR 1.31, 95% CI = 0.77 to 2.24).
Conclusion
The data support a benefit of anticoagulation in reducing stroke and death, without an increased risk of a major bleed in patients with new-onset AF. Anticoagulation treatment in patients at high risk of stroke who are not receiving anticoagulation may further improve outcomes.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Version of record, pdf, 194.5KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.3399/bjgp.2021.0548
- Publisher:
- Royal College of General Practitioners
- Journal:
- British Journal of General Practice More from this journal
- Volume:
- 72
- Issue:
- 723
- Pages:
- e693-e701
- Publication date:
- 2022-05-16
- Acceptance date:
- 2022-01-19
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1478-5242
- ISSN:
-
0960-1643
- Pmid:
-
35577587
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
1261668
- Local pid:
-
pubs:1261668
- Deposit date:
-
2022-06-20
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Apenteng et al.
- Copyright date:
- 2022
- Rights statement:
- ©2022 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).
- Licence:
- CC Attribution (CC BY)
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record