Background: There is ambiguity whether frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) managed with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) should be switched to a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC).Methods... Show moreBackground: There is ambiguity whether frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) managed with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) should be switched to a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC).Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial. Older AF patients living with frailty (age >= 75 years plus a Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) score >= 3) were randomized to switch from INR-guided VKA treatment to a NOAC or to continued VKA treatment. Patients with a glomerular filtration rate <30 mLmin(-1)1.73 m(-2) or with valvular AF were excluded. Follow-up was 12 months. The cause-specific hazard ratio (HR) was calculated for occurrence of the primary outcome which was a major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding complication, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes included thromboembolic events.Results: Between January 2018 and June 2022, a total of 2,621 patients were screened for eligibility and 1,330 patients were randomized (mean age 83 years, median GFI 4). After randomization 6 patients in the switch to NOAC arm and 1 patient in the continue with VKA arm were excluded due to the presence of exclusion criteria, leaving 662 patients switched from a VKA to a NOAC and 661 patients continued VKAs in the intention-to-treat population. After 163 primary outcome events (101 in the switch arm, 62 in the continue arm), the trial was stopped for futility according to a prespecified futility analysis. The HR for our primary outcome was 1.69 (95% CI 1.23-2.32). The HR for thromboembolic events was 1.26 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.61).Conclusions: Switching INR-guided VKA treatment to a NOAC in frail older patients with AF was associated with more bleeding complications compared to continuing VKA treatment, without an associated reduction in thromboembolic complications. Show less
Denissen, S.J.A.M.; Aalst, C.M. van der; Vonder, M.; Gratama, J.W.C.; Adriaansen, H.J.; Kuijpers, D.; ... ; Koning, H.J. de 2021
Aim Screening for a high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk followed by preventive treatment can potentially reduce coronary heart disease-related morbidity and mortality. ROBINSCA (Risk Or Benefit... Show moreAim Screening for a high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk followed by preventive treatment can potentially reduce coronary heart disease-related morbidity and mortality. ROBINSCA (Risk Or Benefit IN Screening for CArdiovascular disease) is a population-based randomized controlled screening trial that investigates the effectiveness of CVD screening in asymptomatic participants using the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) model or coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. This study describes the distributions in risk and treatment in the ROBINSCA trial.Methods and results Individuals at expected elevated CVD risk were randomized into screening arm A (n = 14 478; SCORE, 10-year fatal and non-fatal risk); or screening arm B (n= 14 450; CAC scoring). Preventive treatment was largely advised according to current Dutch guidelines. Risk and treatment differences between the screening arms were analysed. A total of 12 185 participants (84.2%) in arm A and 12 950 (89.6%) in arm B were screened. In total, 48.7% were women, and median age was 62 (interquartile range 10) years. SCORE screening identified 45.1% at low risk (SCORE < 10%), 26.5% at intermediate risk (SCORE 10-20%), and 28.4% at high risk (SCORE >= 20%). According to CAC screening, 76.0% were at low risk (Agatston < 100), 15.1% at high risk (Agatston 100-399), and 8.9% at very high risk (Agatston >= 400). CAC scoring significantly reduced the number of individuals indicated for preventive treatment compared to SCORE (relative reduction women: 37.2%; men: 28.8%).Conclusion We showed that compared to risk stratification based on SCORE, CAC scoring classified significantly fewer men and women at increased risk, and less preventive treatment was indicated. Show less
Denissen, S.J.A.M.; Aalst, C.M. van der; Vonder, M.; Gratama, J.W.C.; Adriaansen, H.J.; Kuijpers, D.; ... ; Koning, H.J. de 2020
