Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 13;4(3):315–323. doi: 10.1016/j.cjco.2021.11.002

Table 2.

The hazard of hemorrhage requiring hospitalization or emergency room visit, comparing initiation of amiodarone vs metoprolol, verapamil vs amlodipine, and diltiazem vs amlodipine, among direct oral anticoagulant users

Comparison Number of events Cumulative incidence (%) Median follow-up time, d (IQR) Unweighted HR (95% CI) Weighted HR (95% CI)
Amiodarone vs metoprolol
Amiodarone 80 1.64 193 (398) 0.80 (0.63–1.01) 0.77 (0.61–0.97)
Metoprolol 503 2.30 233 (534)
Verapamil vs amlodipine
Verapamil 32 2.49 168 (473) 1.39 (0.97–1.99) 1.32 (0.88–1.98)
Amlodipine 406 1.56 139 (372)
Diltiazem vs amlodipine
Diltiazem 312 2.13 257 (641) 1.04 (0.89–1.20) 0.99 (0.85–1.15)
Amlodipine 404 1.54 137 (376)

CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IQR, interquartile range.

Variables included in inverse probability of treatment–weighted hazards model are as follows: demographics (age, sex, income, place of residence); index year; comorbid illnesses (history of hemorrhage, hypertension, diabetes, stroke, atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, peripheral vascular disease, venous thromboembolism); healthcare utilization (number of hospitalizations and emergency room visits in preceding 5 years); medications (beta-blocker, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, proton pump inhibitors, antiplatelet agents, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and statins in preceding 1 year); and direct oral anticoagulant type, dose (high/low), and duration.