Original Article
Warfarin and Aspirin in Patients with Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm
N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1859-1869May 17, 2012DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202299
Comments
open through May 23, 2012
- 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.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Cumulative Incidence of the Primary Outcome.Figure 2
Hazard Ratios for the Primary Outcome with Warfarin, According to Year of Follow-up.Article Activity
- Article
Chronic heart failure is a major cause of illness and death. Heart failure is associated with a hypercoagulable state, formation of left ventricular thrombus, and cerebral embolism.1,2 It is also associated with both sudden death and death resulting from progressive heart failure that may be caused by unrecognized atherothrombotic events.3 As a result, there is a rationale for using oral anticoagulants to treat patients with chronic heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. However, the role of oral anticoagulants as compared with aspirin has not been clarified in patients with chronic heart failure.4-6 Early studies showed that anticoagulation reduced the rates of embolic events and death, but many patients in these trials had atrial fibrillation and clinically significant valvular heart disease, making interpretation of the results difficult.7-9 In retrospective analyses of data from large trials involving patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), conflicting results have been reported.10-13 Unfortunately, these findings are of limited value, since the use of anticoagulants was not randomized or controlled, data were collected retrospectively, end points were not predefined or standardized, and patients with atrial fibrillation were included.
Several prospective studies comparing oral anticoagulants with aspirin were too small to provide conclusive evidence for the superiority of either agent.14-16 In the Heart Failure Long-Term Antithrombotic Study (HELAS), 197 patients were randomly assigned to warfarin, aspirin, or placebo; there was no significant difference among the groups in the incidence of embolic events.14 In the Warfarin/Aspirin Study in Heart Failure (WASH), 279 patients were randomly assigned to warfarin, aspirin, or placebo; there was no significant difference among the groups in the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, but the rate of hospitalization was highest among those receiving aspirin.15 The Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure trial (WATCH), which was the most recent and the largest study, enrolled 1587 patients who were randomly assigned to warfarin, aspirin, or clopidogrel, with a mean follow-up period of 1.9 years.16 The results of this trial, which was terminated prematurely owing to difficulties with recruitment, suggested that there was a reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke with warfarin as compared with aspirin but showed an increase in hospitalization for heart failure in the aspirin group as compared with the warfarin group. The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of warfarin with those of aspirin among a substantially larger number of patients, with the use of a double-blind, randomized design.17
Methods
Study Design and Oversight
We conducted a cooperative, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial at 168 centers in 11 countries. The trial was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with an independently funded clinical coordinating center and statistical analysis center. Warfarin and warfarin placebo were provided by Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., and aspirin and aspirin placebo by Bayer HealthCare. Neither of these companies had any role in the design of the study, the collection or analysis of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The target international normalized ratio (INR) was 2.75, with an acceptable target range of 2.0 to 3.5. To minimize variations in blood processing, blood samples for determination of the INR were processed at selected central laboratories. To confirm the accuracy of LVEF assessment, personnel at two core echocardiography laboratories (in St. Louis and New York) who were unaware of the treatment assignments reviewed the echocardiographic studies. An independent end-point adjudication committee, whose members were unaware of the treatment assignments, adjudicated all primary and secondary outcomes and major hemorrhages. The trial protocol, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org, was approved by the institutional review board at each participating center. The first two authors assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the data and analyses and for the fidelity of the study to the protocol. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patient recruitment started in October 2002 and ended in January 2010. The maximum follow-up time was 6 years, and the minimum was 1 year. An independent data and safety monitoring board appointed by the NIH monitored trial operations.
Study Patients
Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older and had normal sinus rhythm, no contraindication to warfarin therapy, and an LVEF of 35% or less as assessed by quantitative echocardiography (or a wall-motion index of ≤1.2) or as assessed by radionuclide or contrast ventriculography within 3 months before randomization. Patients who had a clear indication for warfarin or aspirin were not eligible. Patients in any New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were eligible, but patients in NYHA class I could account for no more than 20% of the total number of patients undergoing randomization. Additional eligibility criteria were a modified Rankin score of 4 or less (on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability), and planned treatment with a beta-blocker, an angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (or, if the side-effect profile with ACE inhibitors was unacceptable, with an angiotensin-receptor blocker), or hydralazine and nitrates. Patients were ineligible if they had a condition that conferred a high risk of cardiac embolism, such as atrial fibrillation, a mechanical cardiac valve, endocarditis, or an intracardiac mobile or pedunculated thrombus.
Study Medication
In the double-blind, double-dummy design, patients who were assigned to active warfarin received warfarin and placebo aspirin, and patients assigned to active aspirin received aspirin and placebo warfarin.18 The statistical analysis center fabricated clinically plausible INR results for patients in the aspirin group and provided these results to the sites, along with the actual INR results for the patients in the warfarin group, so that all the patients were treated as if they were receiving active warfarin.
Follow-up
Follow-up was performed monthly by telephone or in person at the time blood was obtained for determination of the INR, to assess adherence to the study drug and to regulate INR values. A follow-up assessment in person was also conducted quarterly for a clinical evaluation and annually for a detailed examination. All data were entered into the Web-based communications interface that was developed and managed by the statistical analysis center.
Assessment of Outcomes and Major Adverse Events
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. Stroke was defined as a clinically relevant new lesion detected on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or, in the absence of a new lesion, clinical findings that were consistent with the occurrence of clinical stroke and that lasted for longer than 24 hours. The main secondary outcome was the first event in a composite of the primary outcome, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure. Major hemorrhage was defined as intracerebral, epidural, subdural, subarachnoid, spinal intramedullary, or retinal hemorrhage; any other bleeding causing a decline in the hemoglobin level of more than 2 g per deciliter in 48 hours; or bleeding requiring transfusion of 2 or more units of whole blood, hospitalization, or surgical intervention. Minor hemorrhage was defined as any nonmajor hemorrhage.
Statistical Analysis
The primary null hypothesis was that the time to the first event in the composite primary end point (ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause) would not differ significantly between the group receiving warfarin therapy and the group receiving aspirin therapy. The main secondary null hypothesis was that the time to the first event of the primary outcome, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure would not differ significantly between the two groups.
The original target sample size was 2860 patients, providing 89% power to test the primary null hypothesis in the intention-to-treat population, with the use of a log-rank test and a two-sided probability of a type I error of 5%, assuming a hazard rate reduction of 17.82% in either group as compared with the other, after adjustment for use or nonuse of beta-blockers and allowance for discontinuation of therapy, dropout, and crossover (e.g., owing to the development of atrial fibrillation). In 2009, because of slow recruitment, a plan was developed to stop recruitment in 2010 and to extend the maximum follow-up time from 5 years to 6 years, resulting in a projected sample size of 2303 and power of approximately 65%. The final sample of 2305 patients yielded a sufficient number of outcomes for the study to have 69% power to test the primary null hypothesis and 83% power for the main secondary null hypothesis.
Both major study hypotheses were prespecified and were tested according to the intention-to-treat principle at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05. For the test of the primary null hypothesis, the statistical analysis plan prespecified the use of a log-rank test to compare the cumulative incidence curves in the treatment groups if log-minus-log survival curves did not show a violation of the proportional-hazards assumption and a Cox model with time-varying hazard ratios if they did. Since the log-minus-log survival curves crossed, we report the results of the log-rank test as the primary analysis and, secondarily, the results from the Cox model, which expresses the log-relative hazard ratio as a linear function of follow-up time. A prespecified interim monitoring procedure was performed according to the method of Haybittle and Peto, with conservative stopping boundaries for the interim analyses of log-rank z scores in excess of ±3.2905 (corresponding to a nominal two-tailed P value of 0.001). Because very little type I error was spent with this procedure, we report only the unadjusted P values. Hazard ratios for individual components of the outcomes were obtained from cause-specific proportional-hazards models with or without time-varying coefficients, depending on their statistical significance at an alpha level of 0.05. To help weigh overall risks and benefits, we conducted a post hoc safety analysis that added intracranial hemorrhage to the components of the primary outcome.
Results
Study Patients
From October 2002 through January 2010, a total of 2305 patients were enrolled (1119 in the United States and Canada and 1186 in Europe and Argentina). The mean [±SD] follow-up time was 3.5±1.8 years, and the total follow-up time was 8225 patient-years. The clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of the Study Participants, According to Treatment Group.. Survival status was known for 97.0% of the patients. A total of 34 patients (1.5%) withdrew consent, and 35 (1.5%) were lost to follow-up.Laboratory Testing
The mean LVEF for the entire study population was 24.7±7.5%, with no significant difference between the warfarin and aspirin groups. Echocardiographic studies from 1854 of the 2305 patients in the study population (80.4%) were analyzed at the core echocardiography laboratories; 1746 of these patients (94.2%) had an LVEF of 35% or less or a wall-motion index of 1.2 or less. Baseline contrast angiography, radionuclide scanning, or MRI confirmed the eligibility of 239 of the 2305 patients (10.4%), and the remaining 212 patients (9.2%) entered the study with echocardiographic confirmation of LVEF or wall-motion-index values at the local site, without the core laboratory review.
After a 6-week period of dose adjustment, patients in the warfarin group had an INR in the therapeutic range, defined as 2.0 to 3.5, for 62.6% of the follow-up time, as calculated with the use of a modification of the method of Rosendaal.19 INR values were below 2.0 for 27.1% of the total treatment time and above 3.5 for 10.3% of the total treatment time. In the warfarin group, the mean INR value during treatment was 2.5±0.95.
Outcomes
Overall, 622 of the 2305 patients (27.0%) had a primary outcome (531 deaths [85.4%], 84 ischemic strokes [13.5%], and 7 intracerebral hemorrhages [1.1%]) (Table 2Table 2
Primary, Safety, and Main Secondary Outcomes.). The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 per 100 patient-years in the aspirin group, with no significant difference between the two groups (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40) (Figure 1Figure 1Cumulative Incidence of the Primary Outcome.). A time-varying analysis with the use of a Cox model showed a small benefit of warfarin as compared with aspirin over time. The hazard ratio decreased by a factor of 0.89 per year (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.998; P=0.046) and became borderline significant by year 4 (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.76; P=0.04) (Figure 2Figure 2Hazard Ratios for the Primary Outcome with Warfarin, According to Year of Follow-up.).In the entire patient population, there was a constant and significant benefit with warfarin as compared with aspirin with respect to the rate of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005) (Table 2). The two treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage. Patients in the warfarin group did not receive the randomly assigned medication (and instead received open-label therapy) for 34% of the total follow-up time, and patients in the aspirin group did not receive the assigned medication for 32% of the time. With respect to the main secondary outcome (first event in the composite of death, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure), there was no significant difference between the warfarin group and the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23; P=0.33). The rates of myocardial infarction and hospitalization for heart failure did not differ significantly between the two groups, although there was a trend toward a higher rate of hospitalization for heart failure in the warfarin group (P=0.053) (Table 2).
The rate of major hemorrhage was significantly higher with warfarin than with aspirin (1.78 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin vs. 0.87 per 100 patient-years with aspirin; adjusted rate ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.36 to 3.12; P<0.001) (Table 3Table 3
Rates of Hemorrhage and Death, According to Treatment Group.). However, the rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhages combined did not differ significantly according to treatment group (0.27 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 0.22 per 100 patient-years in the aspirin group, P=0.82). Major gastrointestinal bleeding occurred more frequently in the warfarin group (0.94 events per 100 patient-years vs. 0.45 per 100 patient-years in the aspirin group, P=0.01). Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix (available at NEJM.org) shows the most frequent and the most clinically relevant serious adverse events according to treatment group.Discussion
The WARCEF trial was designed to determine whether warfarin or aspirin is a better treatment for patients with a reduced LVEF who are in sinus rhythm. Previous studies either were retrospective or lacked the power to adequately address this issue. As a result, there has been insufficient evidence to support any strong treatment recommendations regarding the use of warfarin or aspirin in these patients. Our trial had a double-blind design with sham INRs, similar to that used in the Warfarin–Aspirin Recurrent Stroke Study (WARSS, NCT00027066), and used centralized INR processing centers to ensure that the INR data would be of high quality.18,20
Our results show no significant overall difference between warfarin and aspirin therapies in preventing the primary outcome. Although there may have been a small benefit with warfarin among patients followed for 4 or more years, it was of borderline statistical significance and uncertain clinical significance. There was a consistent and significant benefit of warfarin as compared with aspirin with respect to the prevention of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period. This benefit was suggested in the WATCH trial and has now been confirmed in the WARCEF trial, which included more patients and a longer follow-up period.16 However, the benefit was offset by the increase in the incidence of major bleeding. The relative reduction in the risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin among the patients in our study, who had heart failure, is similar to that observed among patients with atrial fibrillation.21 However, the absolute risk of ischemic stroke among patients with a low LVEF who are in sinus rhythm is significantly lower than that among patients with atrial fibrillation. 16
With respect to the main secondary outcome, which included myocardial infarction and hospitalization for heart failure, in addition to the primary outcome, there was no significant difference between the warfarin group and the aspirin group. There was a trend toward an increased rate of hospitalization for heart failure in the warfarin group, a finding that is in direct contrast to the results of the WASH and WATCH trials, which suggested an increased rate of hospitalization for heart failure among patients receiving aspirin.15,16 There has been speculation that aspirin may interfere with prostaglandin synthesis, leading to a reduced effectiveness of ACE inhibition.22,23 In our trial, however, no increase in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure was seen in the aspirin group as compared with the warfarin group, even though a large proportion of patients in the aspirin group were treated with an ACE inhibitor.
In the warfarin group, the INR was in the therapeutic range of 2.0 to 3.5 for 63% of the total treatment time. We set the INR target above that used in trials involving patients with atrial fibrillation, because among trials involving patients who had had a myocardial infarction, those with higher INR targets and values showed the superiority of warfarin over aspirin, whereas those with lower INR targets and values did not.24,25 In our study, patients received either warfarin or aspirin and did not take both medications. The side-effect profile in the case of both warfarin and aspirin was generally acceptable, and there was a low rate of intracerebral hemorrhage. The rate of major hemorrhage was significantly increased with warfarin therapy but was lower than that seen in the warfarin group in recent trials involving patients with atrial fibrillation and similar to that seen in the WARSS and WATCH trials.16,20,26,27
The limitations of our study include the smaller-than-anticipated number of patients enrolled, and, given the variable length of follow-up, the relatively small numbers of patients who were still being followed in years 5 and 6. The time in the therapeutic range among patients in the warfarin group was relatively low at 63%. In addition, in both groups, there was a substantial portion of follow-up time during which the patients did not receive the assigned study treatment. However, this duration was similar in the two treatment groups, thus minimizing any bias. Since newer antithrombotic agents, as compared with warfarin, are easier to administer and may be associated with better long-term adherence to therapy, they may increase the time in the therapeutic range and reduce the time during which patients do not receive the assigned therapy.26-28 If so, they may prove to be more effective than warfarin or aspirin.
In summary, this trial showed no significant overall difference between warfarin and aspirin with respect to the primary outcome of death, ischemic stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage. However, among patients followed for 4 or more years, there may have been a small benefit, of uncertain clinical significance, with warfarin. Warfarin was associated with a reduction in the risk of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period. Given the finding that warfarin did not provide an overall benefit and was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, there is no compelling reason to use warfarin rather than aspirin in patients with a reduced LVEF who are in sinus rhythm.
Supported by grants (U01-NS-043975 [to Dr. Homma] and U01-NS-039143 [to Dr. Thompson]) from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Dr. Homma reports receiving payment from AGA Medical (now St. Jude Medical) for his work as a member of a data and safety monitoring board and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; Dr. Levin, receiving consulting fees from United Healthcare; Dr. Teerlink, receiving consulting fees from Amgen and grant support from Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Novartis on behalf of himself and from NovaCardia/Merck on behalf of himself and his institution; Dr. Graham, owning stock in March Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and Pfizer; Dr. Labovitz, receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim on behalf of his institution, lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and fees for the development of educational presentations from the American College of Cardiology; Dr. Anker, receiving consulting fees from Amgen, Bosch Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Helsinn, LoneStar Heart, Novartis, Professional Dietetics, PsiOxus, Relypsa, SHL Telemedicine, and Thermo Fisher, grant support from Vifor Pharma, and lecture fees from Novartis, holding patents with Brahms AG and Charité Berlin, and receiving royalties from Imperial College; Dr. Ponikowski, receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Coridea, Corthera, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Respicardia, and Vifor Pharma, grant support from Vifor Pharma on behalf of himself and his institution, and lecture fees from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Respicardia, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and Dr. Lip, receiving consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Inhelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Portola, and Sanofi-Aventis, speakers bureau fees from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi-Aventis, and payment for the development of educational presentations from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Drs. Homma and Thompson contributed equally to this article.
This article (10.1056/NEJMoa1202299) was published on May 2, 2012, at NEJM.org.
Source Information
From Columbia University Medical Center, New York (S.H., J.L.P.T., B.L., J.P.M., M.R.D.T., V.M., A.P.G., M.L.V., R.B., A.R.S.); the University of Kent, Canterbury (P.M.P.), and the University of Birmingham Centre for Cardiovascular Sciences, Birmingham (G.Y.H.L.) — both in the United Kingdom; Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, PA (R.S.F.); the University of California, San Francisco (J.R.T., B.M.M.), and San Francisco VA Medical Center (J.R.T., B.M.M., S.E.A.) — both in San Francisco; the State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo (S.G.); the University of Miami, Miami (R.L.S.); Washington University, St. Louis (D.L.M.); the University of South Florida, Tampa (A.J.L.); Charité Universitätsmedicin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin (S.D.A.); the Center for Clinical and Basic Research, IRCCS San Raffaele, Rome (S.D.A.); Hospital Deventer, Deventer, the Netherlands (D.J.L.); Military Hospital, Wroclaw, Poland (P.P.); and Centro Neurológico de Tratamiento y Rehabilitación, Buenos Aires (C.J.E.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Homma at Columbia University Medical Center, PH 3-342, 622 West 168th St., New York, NY 10032.
The investigators in the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) Study Group are listed in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
- References
References
1
Kalaria VG ,Passannante MR ,Shah T ,Modi K ,Weisse AB . Effect of mitral regurgitation on left ventricular thrombus formation in dilated cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J 1998;135:215-220
CrossRef | Web of Science2
Lip GYH ,Gibbs CR . Does heart failure confer a hypercoagulable state? Virchow's triad revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:1424-1426
CrossRef | Web of Science3
Uretsky BF ,Thygesen K ,Armstrong PW , et al. Acute coronary findings at autopsy in heart failure patients with sudden death: results from the Assessment of Treatment With Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) trial. Circulation 2000;102:611-616
Web of Science | Medline4
Freudenberger RS ,Halperin JL . Should we use anticoagulation for patients with chronic heart failure? Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med 2006;3:580-581
CrossRef | Web of Science5
Ezekowitz M . Antithrombotics for left-ventricular impairment? Lancet 1998;351:1904-1904
CrossRef | Web of Science6
Sacco RL ,Adams R ,Albers G , et al. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Circulation 2006;113:e409-e449
Web of Science | Medline7
Anderson GM ,Hull E . The effects of dicumarol upon the mortality and incidence of thromboembolic complications in congestive heart failure. Am Heart J 1950;39:697-702
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Griffith GC ,Stragnell R ,Levinson DC ,Moore FJ ,Ware AG . A study of the beneficial effects of anticoagulant therapy in congestive heart failure. Ann Intern Med 1952;37:867-887
Web of Science9
Harvey WP ,Finch CA . Dicumarol prophylaxis of thromboembolic disease in congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1950;242:208-211
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline10
Al-Khadra AS ,Salem DN ,Rand WM ,Udelson JE ,Smith JJ ,Konstam MA . Warfarin anticoagulation and survival: a cohort analysis from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31:749-753
CrossRef | Web of Science11
Loh E ,Sutton MS ,Wun CC , et al. Ventricular dysfunction and the risk of stroke after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997;336:251-257
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline12
Dunkman WB ,Johnson GR ,Carson PE ,Bhat G ,Farrell L ,Cohn JN . Incidence of thromboembolic events in congestive heart failure. Circulation 1993;87:VI94-V10113
Freudenberger RS ,Hellkamp AS ,Halperin JL , et al. Risk of thromboembolism in heart failure: an analysis from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). Circulation 2007;115:2637-2641
CrossRef | Web of Science14
Cokkinos DV ,Haralabopoulos GC ,Kostis JB ,Toutozas PK . Efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in chronic heart failure: the HELAS study. Eur J Heart Fail 2006;8:428-432
CrossRef | Web of Science15
Cleland JGF ,Findlay I ,Jafri S , et al. The Warfarin/Aspirin Study in Heart Failure (WASH): a randomized trial comparing antithrombotic strategies for patients with heart failure. Am Heart J 2004;148:157-164
CrossRef | Web of Science16
Massie BM ,Collins JF ,Ammon SE , et al. Randomized trial of warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel in patients with chronic heart failure: the Warfarin and Antiplatelet Therapy in Chronic Heart Failure (WATCH) trial. Circulation 2009;119:1616-1624
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Pullicino P ,Thompson JL ,Barton B , et al. Warfarin versus aspirin in patients with reduced cardiac ejection fraction (WARCEF): rationale, objectives, and design. J Card Fail 2006;12:39-46
CrossRef | Web of Science18
Thompson JLP ,Fleiss JL ,James K , et al. Test of an algorithm for simulating prothrombin times in a double-blind anticoagulation drug trial. Ann Neurol 1994;36:305-306
Web of Science19
Rosendaal FR ,Cannegieter SC ,van der Meer FJ ,Briet E . A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 1993;69:236-239
Web of Science | Medline20
Mohr JP ,Thompson JL ,Lazar RM , et al. A comparison of warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1444-1451
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline21
Hart RG ,Benavente O ,McBride R ,Pearce LA . Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:492-501
Web of Science | Medline22
Hall D ,Zeitler H ,Rudolph W . Counteraction of the vasodilator effects of enalapril by aspirin in severe heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;20:1549-1555
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Spaulding C ,Charnonnier B ,Cohen-Solal A , et al. Acute hemodynamic interaction of aspirin and ticlopidine with enalapril: results of a double-blind, randomized comparative trial. Circulation 1998;98:757-765
Web of Science | Medline24
Hurlen M ,Abdelnoor M ,Smith P ,Erikssen J ,Arnesen H . Warfarin, aspirin, or both after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002;347:969-974
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline25
van Es RF ,Jonker JJ ,Verheugt FW ,Deckers JW ,Grobbee DE . Aspirin and Coumadin After Acute Coronary Syndromes (the ASPECT-2 study): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:109-113
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Connolly SJ ,Ezekowitz MD ,Yusuf S , et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1139-1151[Erratum, N Engl J Med 2010;363:1877.]
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline27
Patel MR ,Mahaffey KW ,Garg J , et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011;365:883-891
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline28
Granger CB ,Alexander JH ,McMurray JJV , et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011;365:981-992
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (38)
Citing Articles
1
Renato D. Lopes, Richard C. Becker, L. Kristin Newby, Eric D. Peterson, Elaine M. Hylek, Robert Giugliano, Christopher B. Granger, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Antonio C. Carvalho, Otavio Berwanger, Roberto R. Giraldez, Gilson Soares Feitosa-Filho, Marcia M. Barbosa, Maria da Consolacao V. Moreira, Renato A. K. Kalil, Marildes Freitas, Joao Carlos Campos Guerra, Marcio Vinicius Lins Barros, Thiago da Rocha Rodrigues, Antonio C. Lopes, David A. Garcia. (2013) Highlights from the fifth international symposium of thrombosis and anticoagulation (ISTA V), october 18–19, 2012, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 36:1, 115-130
2
Adrian F. Hernandez, Bradley G. Hammill, Robb D. Kociol, Zubin J. Eapen, Gregg C. Fonarow, Winslow Klaskala, Roger M. Mills, Lesley H. Curtis. (2013) Clinical Effectiveness of Anticoagulation Therapy Among Older Patients With Heart Failure and Without Atrial Fibrillation: Findings From the ADHERE Registry Linked to Medicare Claims. Journal of Cardiac Failure 19:6, 401-407
3
Mitchell A. Psotka, John R. Teerlink. (2013) Strategies to Prevent Postdischarge Adverse Events Among Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure. Heart Failure Clinics
4
Ugochukwu O. Egolum, Daniel G. Stover, Ryan Anthony, Allison M. Wasserman, Daniel Lenihan, Julie B. Damp. (2013) Intracardiac Thrombus. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 345:5, 391-395
5
Aaron YL. Liew, John W. Eikelboom, Stuart J. Connolly, Martin O' Donnell, Robert G. Hart. (2013) Efficacy and safety of warfarin vs. antiplatelet therapy in patients with systolic heart failure and sinus rhythm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Stroken/a-n/a
6
Scott Kaatz, Brian F. Gage. (2013) Top practice-changing articles over the last two years. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 35:3, 325-332
7
Daniel Müller, Hans-Christoph Diener, Karim Hajjar, Björn Plicht, Thomas Buck, Christian Weimar. (2013) Emboliequelle identifizieren, Akuttherapie einleiten, Rezidiven vorbeugen. InFo Neurologie & Psychiatrie 15:4, 44-57
8
Margaret S. Kim, Tomoko S. Kato, Maryjane Farr, Christina Wu, Raymond C. Givens, Ellias Collado, Donna M. Mancini, P. Christian Schulze. (2013) Hepatic Dysfunction in Ambulatory Patients with Heart Failure - Application of the MELD Scoring System for Outcome Prediction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology
9
Gen-Min Lin, Yi-Hwei Li, Lamin .E.S. Jaiteh, Chih-Lu Han. (2013) Warfarin may reduce risk of ischemic stroke by preventing atrial fibrillation for patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm. International Journal of Cardiology 164:2, 245-246
10
Ron Pisters, Gregory Y. H. Lip. (2013) Safety and Efficacy of New Anticoagulants in Patients with Heart Failure. Current Heart Failure Reports 10:1, 18-25
11
John M. Nicklas, Barry E. Bleske, Richard Van Harrison, Robert V. Hogikyan, Yeong Kwok, William E. Chavey. (2013) Heart Failure. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 40:1, 17-42
12
Nicolas W. Shammas, Rafat F. Padaria, Edmund P. Coyne. (2013) Pericarditis, Myocarditis, and Other Cardiomyopathies. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 40:1, 213-236
13
Robert S. McKelvie, Gordon W. Moe, Justin A. Ezekowitz, George A. Heckman, Jeannine Costigan, Anique Ducharme, Estrellita Estrella-Holder, Nadia Giannetti, Adam Grzeslo, Karen Harkness, Jonathan G. Howlett, Simon Kouz, Kori Leblanc, Elizabeth Mann, Anil Nigam, Eileen O'Meara, Miroslaw Rajda, Brian Steinhart, Elizabeth Swiggum, Vy Van Le, Shelley Zieroth, J. Malcolm O. Arnold, Tom Ashton, Michel D'Astous, Paul Dorian, Haissam Haddad, Debra L. Isaac, Marie-Hélène Leblanc, Peter Liu, Vivek Rao, Heather J. Ross, Bruce Sussex. (2013) The 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Heart Failure Management Guidelines Update: Focus on Acute and Chronic Heart Failure. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 29:2, 168-181
14
Ruth M. Thomson, David C. Anderson. (2013) Aspirin and Clopidogrel for Prevention of Ischemic Stroke. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 13:2,
15
T. A. McDonagh. (2013) The Year in Cardiology 2012: heart failure. European Heart Journal 34:7, 499-502
16
Adriaan A. Voors. (2013) Heart failure in 2012: Trial data resolve gaps in evidence-based treatment. Nature Reviews Cardiology 10:2, 67-68
17
Michael M. Givertz, Jay N. Cohn. Pharmacologic Management of Heart Failure in the Ambulatory Setting. In: Cardiovascular Therapeutics: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease. Elsevier, 2013:241-269.
18
Gen-Min Lin, Yi-Hwei Li, Lamin E.S. Jaiteh, Chih-Lu Han. (2013) B-type natriuretic peptide level and postdischarge thrombotic events in older patients hospitalized with heart failure: Insights from the acute decompensated heart failure national registry. American Heart Journal 165:1, e1
19
Robb D. Kociol, Lesley H. Curtis, Adrian F. Hernandez. (2013) In Reply: B-type natriuretic peptide level and postdischarge thrombotic events in older patients hospitalized with heart failure: Insights from the ADHERE registry. American Heart Journal 165:1, e3
20
Benoit Daneault, Philippe Généreux, Ajay J. Kirtane, Bernhard Witzenbichler, Giulio Guagliumi, Jean-Michel Paradis, Martin P. Fahy, Roxana Mehran, Gregg W. Stone. (2013) Comparison of Three-Year Outcomes After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction <40% Versus ≥40% (from the HORIZONS-AMI Trial). The American Journal of Cardiology 111:1, 12-20
21
F. Marin, G. Y. H. Lip. (2013) Oral anticoagulation for heart failure in sinus rhythm: from evidence to clinical recommendations, or not?. European Journal of Heart Failure 15:1, 3-4
22
I. Hopper, M. Skiba, H. Krum. (2013) Updated meta-analysis on antithrombotic therapy in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm. European Journal of Heart Failure 15:1, 69-78
23
Kory J Lavine, Douglas L Mann. (2013) Rethinking Phase II clinical trial design in heart failure. Clinical Investigation 3:1, 57-68
24
Faiez Zannad, Wendy Gattis Stough, Véronique Regnault, Mihai Gheorghiade, Efthymios Deliargyris, C. Michael Gibson, Stefan Agewall, Scott D. Berkowitz, Paul Burton, Gonzalo Calvo, Sidney Goldstein, Freek W.A. Verheugt, Joerg Koglin, Christopher M. O'Connor. (2013) Is thrombosis a contributor to heart failure pathophysiology? Possible mechanisms, therapeutic opportunities, and clinical investigation challenges. International Journal of Cardiology
25
R. De Caterina, S. Husted, L. Wallentin, F. Andreotti, H. Arnesen, F. Bachmann, C. Baigent, K. Huber, J. Jespersen, S. D. Kristensen, G. Y. H. Lip, J. Morais, L. H. Rasmussen, A. Siegbahn, F. W. A. Verheugt, J. I. Weitz. (2013) General mechanisms of coagulation and targets of anticoagulants (Section I). Thrombosis and Haemostasis 109:4, 569-579
26
Feixiong Cheng, Weihua Li, Yadi Zhou, Jie Li, Jie Shen, Philip W. Lee, Yun Tang. (2013) Prediction of human genes and diseases targeted by xenobiotics using predictive toxicogenomic-derived models (PTDMs). Molecular BioSystems 9:6, 1316
27
Yutao Guo, Gregory Y. H. Lip, Stavros Apostolakis. (2012) The Challenge of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure. Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
28
Giuseppe Pasquale, Stefano Urbinati, Enrica Perugini, Simona Gambetti. (2012) Interactions Between Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease. Current Treatment Options in Neurology 14:6, 557-593
29
Gyanendra Kumar, Munish Kumar Goyal. (2012) Warfarin versus Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke in Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
30
Haralampos Milionis, Mohamed Faouzi, Maria Cordier, Suzette D'Ambrogio-Remillard, Ashraf Eskandari, Patrik Michel. (2012) Characteristics and early and long-term outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke and low ejection fraction. International Journal of Cardiology
31
(2012) Oral antikoagulieren oder die Plättchen hemmen?. InFo Neurologie & Psychiatrie 14:11, 22-22
32
Mihai Gheorghiade, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Gregg C. Fonarow, Stephen J. Greene, Barry H. Greenberg, Peter P. Liu, Barry M. Massie, Mandeep R. Mehra, Marco Metra, Faiez Zannad, John G. F. Cleland, Dirk J. Veldhuisen, Ami N. Shah, Javed Butler. (2012) Anticoagulation in heart failure: current status and future direction. Heart Failure Reviews
33
(2012) Warfarin versus Aspirin in Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm. New England Journal of Medicine 367:8, 771-772
Free Full Text34
Piotr Ponikowski, Ewa A. Jankowska. (2012) Anticoagulation for Heart Failure Patients in Sinus Rhythm: Common in Clinical Practice But Still Not Evidence-based. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) 65:8, 687-689
35
Piotr Ponikowski, Ewa A. Jankowska. (2012) Anticoagulación para pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca en ritmo sinusal: habitual en la práctica clínica, pero aún no basada en la evidencia. Revista Española de Cardiología 65:8, 687-689
36
Peter W. Radke. (2012) Bei Sinusrhythmus nützt Antikoagulation wenig. CardioVasc 12:3, 58-59
37
Eikelboom , John W. , Connolly , Stuart J. , . (2012) Warfarin in Heart Failure. New England Journal of Medicine 366:20, 1936-1938
Full Text38
G. Y. H. Lip, P. Piotrponikowski, F. Andreotti, S. D. Anker, G. Filippatos, S. Homma, J. Morais, P. Pullicino, L. H. Rasmussen, F. Marín, D. A. Lane. (2012) Thromboembolism and antithrombotic therapy for heart failure in sinus rhythm. Thrombosis and Haemostasis 108:6, 1009-1022
- Comments (3)
-
3 Reader's Comments
Haitham Dababneh, MD | Physician - Neurology | Disclosure: NoneEdison NJMay 08, 2012Further Steps to Caring for Patients with Stroke
I am glad to see a study addressing a relevant issue to patients vascular neurologists frequently encounter in practice. When faced with the dilemma of anti-coagulant choice following stroke in patients with heart failure, I am often searching for information regarding cost effective approaches that improve patient outcomes. The study presented here begins to address this issue, but we disagree with the final conclusion. Additional analysis, including severity and extent of the stroke with relation to choice of anti-coagulant may provide insight into the superior medication. The authors did not include functional outcome measures in patients with inschmic stroke at presentation and 90 days.
The results also included data in favor of warfarin in preventing stroke occurence, but reported that this was offset by the risk of extracranial hemorrhage. Though morbidity is associated with extracranial hemorrhage, therapeutic benefit from transfusion is available to patients in the acute setting to prevent organ dysfunction. There may be greater mobidity associated with stroke when compared to potentially curable extracranial hemorrhage.ALEXANDER FRANKE, MBBS | Physician - INTERNAL MED/PSYCHIATRY | Disclosure: NonePERTH AustraliaMay 06, 2012Reply to the WARCEF Investigators
Homma et al are thanked for their efforts. It is worth reiterating that the study had 69% power to detect a multiple component primary end point and that only 63% of persons assigned to the warfarin arm were within the therapeutic INR range. Would the authors elaborate further as to why the 34% of participants who violated protocol whilst assigned to receive warfarin and the 32% of participants assigned to aspirin, but did not take the drug, thereby violating protocol, were included as having completed follow-up or reached the primary endpoint as the CONSORT diagram implies? Would the authors provide hazard ratios and survival curves corrected for these protocol violations, on an intention to treat basis?
Eikelboom and Connolly, who declare in an editorial that "any future evaluation of anticoagulants in patients with heart failure should focus on patients with underlying coronary heart disease who do not have advanced systolic dysfunction" surely undermine the only remaining potency the WARCEF study has, which was to allow the reader to deduce the influence heart failure, in isolation, had upon the occurrence of cardioembolic stroke. - Letters
Avoid warfarin AND aspirin in heart failure patients
In “Warfarin and Aspirin in Patients with Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm,” Homma and colleagues concluded, “The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.”Wait a minute! Neither drug is proven efficacious or safe in heart failure.
A Cochrane Review of heart failure patient outcomes showed no benefit with either aspirin or warfarin compared with placebo. This review concluded that aspirin, “may be detrimental in view of the reduction of ACE Inhibitor benefit and other side effects.” The WASH trial, comparing warfarin, aspirin, and placebo in patients with heart failure found aspirin to be ineffective and associated with increased admissions for decompensated heart failure (P = 0.044).
The European Society of Cardiology guidelines state, “Aspirin should be avoided in patients with recurrent hospitalization with worsening heart failure. Similarly, AHA/ACC heart failure guidelines suggest avoiding ASA.
Since aspirin harms heart failure patients, the finding in this study that warfarin is no more efficacious than aspirin means both warfarin and aspirin should be contraindicated in heart failure patients.