Search

Introduction: Both the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its subsequent use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are rapidly increasing in patients of older age. In the absence of contra-indications, guidelines advocate anticoagulation based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score for all AF patients aged 75 and above. However, some practitioners are hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants to older and frail patients due to perceived elevated bleeding risks. This review delves into the comparative treatment outcomes of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in older patients with AF, particularly focusing on those of advanced age, frailty, increased risk of falling, chronic kidney disease (CKD), or with a history of major bleeding. Additionally, considerations on the use of off-label DOAC doses, the role of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure and future developments in factor XIa-inhibitors will be discussed., Results: While strong evidence supports the use of DOACs in the vital older patients with nonvalvular AF, it remains scant in frail patient groups. There is some evidence from non-randomized studies suggesting that the effect of DOACs compared with VKAs is consistent between frail and nonfrail patients. However, recent findings from a single randomized trial showed increased bleeding risks but comparable thromboembolic outcomes in frail individuals switching from VKAs to DOACs. In patients with an increased risk of falling, data suggest no relevant interaction of increased risk of falling on the effectiveness and safety of DOACs compared with warfarin. Resuming oral anticoagulants in patients with Af after major bleeding seems to be beneficial. Off-label low-dose DOAC is often prescribed to patients who were underrepresented in larger randomized trails because of an elevated risk of bleeding or overexposure to DOACs, but its effect on clinical outcomes remains uncertain., Conclusions: DOACs are the recommended oral anticoagulant for vital older patients with AF. The scarcity of data backing DOAC use in frail individuals, those with renal impairments, or significant bleeding history underscores the necessity for further investigation. However, existing evidence suggests at least similar effectiveness and safety and potential benefits for DOACs in these patient subsets. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest these patients should be treated differently than the established guidelines regarding anticoagulation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Sometimes there is doubt as to whether or not anticoagulants should be initiated, and if so which ones, in patients with atrial fibrillation and advanced age, increased frailty, or fall risk, kidney, or liver impairment, alcohol abuse, uncontrolled hypertension, or a history of major bleeding. These subgroups have increased risk of haemorrhage as well as thromboembolism. Treatment with anticoagulants is indicated in the vital elderly, preferably with direct oral anticoagulants as demonstrated by robust data. The available study results for the other subgroups may not be (fully) generalisable to clinical practice. In such patients, a comprehensive risk assessment is therefore advised; as is discussing the pros and cons of (not) using anticoagulants and of both type of anticoagulants. Only in exceptional cases is it justified not to use anticoagulants.