English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background  In March 2014, the American Heart Association updated their guidelines for the management of oral anticoagulation ( OAC ) in atrial fibrillation, recommending  OAC  for all patients with  CHA  2  DS  2 ‐ VAS c ≥2. Previously, only patients with  CHADS  2  ≥2 were recommended for anticoagulation. This study compared effectiveness and safety outcomes of  OAC  among patients who would receive  OAC  using the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines.    Methods and Results  Using claims data from a 5% sample of 2013–2014 Medicare beneficiaries, we identified patients with initially diagnosed atrial fibrillation between 2013 and 2014 and selected those who would receive  OAC  under the 2014 guidelines but not the 2011 guidelines (those with  CHA  2  DS  2 ‐ VAS c score ≥2 or  CHADS  2  score <2). Patients were categorized according to their use of  OAC  after first atrial fibrillation diagnosis (2937 users and 2914 nonusers). Primary outcomes included the composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism and death, and any bleeding event. Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to compare the risk of primary outcomes between the 2 groups, while controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. There was no difference in the combined risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and death between the treatment groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.84–1.20). The risk of bleeding was higher for patients receiving  OAC  than for patients not receiving  OAC  (hazard ratio, 1.70, 95% confidence interval, 1.46–1.97).    Conclusions  The benefit of  OAC  is not well defined in this patient population, and new studies that minimize residual confounding are needed to fully understand the risk/benefit of  OAC  in patients with atrial fibrillation and low to moderate stroke risk.

journal of the american heart association

Outcomes of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Newly Recommended for Oral Anticoagulation Under the 2014 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society Guideline