The New England journal of medicine 2012-05-17
Warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.
Abstract
Background
It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm.
Methods
We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause.
Results
The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P=0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P=0.82).
Conclusions
Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.).
Related Questions
When do you use anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention in patients with LV injury or dysfunction?
First, I will observe that the recent work is a cohort study, not an RCT< and I would be careful about concluding that anticoagulation is the best approach. We have had prior trials, e.g., WARCEF and the related ESUS trials (NAVIGATE and RESPECT), and others that have looked at possible cardioemboli...
Is there a role for aspirin 81 mg daily in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced EF?
When there are other indications for antiplatelet therapy such as history of stroke, PVD, etc., Aspirin has a role in pharmacological therapy of patients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. However, in the absence of coexisting indications, ther...
Would you consider anticoagulation for a young patient with a recent embolic stroke and newly diagnosed global cardiac hypokinesis with ejection fraction of less than 25%?
Yes, I would consider anticoagulation but the evidence is indirect. There is reasonable data in persons with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction that ischemic stroke is reduced with anticoagulation compared to antiplatelet therapy alone. But essentially all large RCTs are limited in that th...
When do you start anticoagulation for secondary prevention in patients with HFrEF and history of embolic strokes?
Current guidelines consider anticoagulation in patients with reduced EF as class III (no benefit and possibility of harm), which has not changed significantly since WARCEF was published. The most recent randomized large trial, COMMANDER HF, looked at primary stroke prevention (among other thrombotic...