Table 2.
Adjusted association of direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) with outcomes relative to warfarin
Warfarin | DOAC | |
---|---|---|
Number of patients | 3431 | 4244 |
Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (primary outcome) | ||
Events, n | 42 | 52 |
Total person time follow up | 3525.39 | 4178.02 |
Events per 100 patient years, n (95% CI) | 1.19 (0.86, 1.61) | 1.24 (0.93, 1.63) |
Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 1.11 (0.74, 1.66) |
IPTW adjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 1.41 (0.92-2.14) |
E-value for IPTW adjusted HR | - | 2.17 |
Major bleeding (primary outcome) | ||
Events, n | 153 | 126 |
Total person time follow up | 3406.55 | 4088.97 |
Events per 100 patient years, n (95% CI) | 4.49 (3.81, 5.26) | 3.08 (2.57, 3.67) |
Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 0.69 (0.55, 0.88) |
IPTW adjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 0.90 (0.70-1.17) |
E-value for IPTW adjusted HR | - | 1.46 |
All-cause death (secondary outcome) | ||
Events, n | 471 | 298 |
Total person time follow up | 3539.03 | 4201.64 |
Events per 100 patient years, n (95% CI) | 13.3 (12.1, 14.6) | 7.09 (6.31, 7.95) |
Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 0.51 (0.44, 0.59) |
IPTW adjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 0.81 (0.69-0.94) |
E-value for IPTW adjusted HR | - | 1.77 |
Cardiovascular death (secondary outcome) | ||
Events, n | 111 | 79 |
Total person time follow up | 3539.03 | 4201.64 |
Events per 100 patient years, n (95% CI) | 3.14 (2.18, 3.78) | 1.88 (1.49, 2.34) |
Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 0.61 (0.46, 0.81) |
IPTW adjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 0.82 (0.59-1.13) |
E-value for IPTW adjusted HR | - | 1.74 |
Sepsis (negative control outcome) | ||
Events, n | 70 | 105 |
Total person time follow up | 3517.81 | 4171.78 |
Events per 100 patient years, n (95% CI) | 1.99 (1.55, 2.51) | 2.52 (2.06, 3.05) |
Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 1.34 (0.99, 1.81) |
IPTW adjusted HR (95% CI) | Reference | 1.07 (0.79-1.46) |
E-value for IPTW adjusted HR | - | 1.34 |
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, IPTW inverse probability of treatment weighting