Skip to main content
Download PDF

The safety and efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders volume 24, Article number: 74 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background and aim

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently observed cardiac arrhythmia in clinical settings. Obesity can influence the efficacy of the treatment administered, which requires a larger dose and more time to accomplish therapeutic targets due to altered pathophysiology. Our study aimed to assess the overall efficacy and safety of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in AF patients with morbid obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2 and/or weight > 120 kg) to prevent complications.

Methods

We conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus till October 2022 for articles addressing the efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of AF in morbidly obese patients. We performed the meta-analysis with RevMan software version 5.4 and Open Meta Analyst. The main outcomes assessed were stroke, major bleeding, and minor bleeding after anticoagulation, as did the history of comorbidities and risk factors in morbidly obese patients. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane’s ROB-2 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale.

Results

Regarding major bleeding events, pooled data showed that patients taking NOACs had a significantly lower risk than patients taking warfarin (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: [0.41–0.70]; p < 0.00001). However, for minor bleeding, there was a nonsignificant effect of NOACs on reducing the risk of bleeding (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.47–1.09; p = 0.12), which became highly significant in favor of NOACs after sensitivity analysis (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.49–0.61]; p < 0.00001). There was a significant difference in the incidence of stroke between the NOAC group and the warfarin group (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.60–0.80]; p < 0.00001). According to the results of the single-arm study analysis, the overall effect of all the outcomes was associated with a high risk of disease development in patients receiving NOACs.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed a favorable effect of NOACs vs warfarin in morbidly obese patients. Some outcomes were not significantly different, which calls for future research to better assess their safety and efficacy in this particular weight group.

Trial registration

The study was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022362493 on October 2022.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most persistent and frequently observed cardiac arrhythmia in clinical settings. It has been associated with a higher risk of death, stroke, and peripheral embolism [1]. The prevalence of AF varies depending on age, from 2% in the general population to 10–12% in people who are 80 years or older [2].

The onset and persistence of atrial fibrillation are both significantly influenced by obesity (AF). Compared to nonobese people, obese people have a nearly 50% increased risk of developing AF [3]. According to estimates, obesity causes nearly one in five cases of AF, with each incremental increase in body mass index (BMI) increasing the incidence of the condition by 4 to 5% [4]. Obesity can additionally influence the efficacy of the treatment administered due to differences in the metabolism and distribution of the drugs, which in turn can cause additional complications.

All international guidelines strongly advise the use of anticoagulants for AF patients at high risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2) [5, 6]. These recommendations advocate for the use of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) rather than warfarin due to the significant connection with serious bleeding, numerous food and drug interactions, and the requirement for ongoing monitoring [7, 8]. Compared to adults of normal weight, obese adults may require a greater dose and more time to accomplish therapeutic targets due to altered pathophysiology that can affect the pharmacology of anticoagulants, including warfarin [9]. Due to anticoagulant underdosing, this may contribute to adverse events such as stroke and hospitalization.

The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis advises against using NOACs among individuals with a BMI > 40 or > 120 kg, although they recommend the standard dosing of NOACs in patients with obesity and with a BMI below 40 kg or weight below 120 kg due to the paucity of clinical data for these patients [10]. The utility of NOACs in patients with morbid obesity has not been thoroughly studied or established. Therefore, it is critical to compare the risk of stroke and major bleeding (MB) among other serious adverse effects in patients taking nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants who suffer from AF and are morbidly obese.

Despite the well-known negative effects of obesity on cardiovascular health, a paradoxical phenomenon known as the obesity paradox has been theorized about in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses. According to this phenomenon, studies with longer-term follow-up periods showed that participants who were overweight or mildly obese (BMI 35 kg/m2) and in the NOAC group had lower all-cause mortality [11, 12]. Despite these findings, several studies have criticized this assumption due to the possibility of unfounded associations with rhythm control strategies, unreported confounders, or selection bias in observational or cohort studies [13,14,15].

NOACs have drawn attention in several systematic reviews investigating their use in individuals with obesity [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. The results of published studies on the efficacy and safety of NOACs in obese patients are variable. Barakat et al. reported that, compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a 25% reduction in the risk of ischaemic stroke, an approximately 60% reduction in the risk of bleeding events, and an approximately 50% reduction in the risk of haemorrhagic stroke [27]. However, a post-hoc analysis of the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial claimed that apixaban and warfarin both carry comparable relative risks of severe bleeding, despite apixaban having a reduced absolute risk [22].

Since the results of multiple studies have divergent recommendations, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the overall effect of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with morbid obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2 and/or weight > 120 kg).

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines, and all steps were performed with strict adherence to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis [33, 34]. The study was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022362493.

Literature search strategy

We searched the following medical electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus up to October 2022. The detailed search strategy is presented in Supplementary File 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Two independent authors screened the articles in two steps: title/abstract screening and full-text screening. Any conflicts were resolved by consensus or group discussion. We included both experimental (including a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT)) and observational studies (either prospective or retrospective) with the following criteria: population of patients (≥18 years of age) with morbid obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2 and/or weight > 120 kg) and the use of NOACs and/or warfarin for AF treatment. The exclusion criteria included not morbidly obese patients, postablation patients, patients with venous thromboembolism, patients not on NOACs, and patients without atrial fibrillation. Additionally, studies with incomplete data, case reports, review articles, editorials, guidelines, duplicates, or not in the English language were excluded.

Data extraction

One independent author extracted the data from the included studies using a Google sheet. The data extraction sheets included the following information: study design; country, intervention and comparator; follow-up period; patient characteristics, including history of comorbidities; and main outcomes. Additionally, we extracted the CHA2D2-VASc score from relevant studies. The outcomes assessed were stroke, embolization, major or minor bleeding, and death.

Methodological quality assessment

Since our systematic review and meta-analysis included different study designs, multiple quality assessment tools were used. For the RCTs, we used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) to assess bias in the randomization process, deviations from the intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result [35].

For retrospective cohort studies, the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) was used for assessment [36]. The NOS is based on a star scoring system in which a maximum of nine (for cohort and cross-sectional studies) or ten scores (for case–control studies) can be awarded to each study. The quality assessment was independently checked by one author and reviewed by all the authors to resolve any disagreements.

Strategy for data synthesis and statistical analysis

The data from the included studies were pooled and analysed with RevMan V.5.4 software. For the analysis of single-arm studies, Open Meta Analyst was used [37].

We used forest plots for improved data visualization. We used the chi-square test to assess heterogeneity. The impact of each study on the pooled analysis was examined using sensitivity analysis. Pooled treatment effects for binary endpoints were compared using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous variables, mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were calculated. The overall p value was considered to be significant when p was < 0.05. Heterogeneity was examined with the Cochran Q test and was considered to be statistically significant when the two-tailed p value was < 0.05. Since heterogeneity was high, a random-effects model was used, followed by sensitivity analysis using the “leave-one-out” test. A funnel plot was generated and inspected visually to determine the possibility of publication bias in the hypertension subgroup.

Results

Study selection

We conducted a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception until the end of 2022 for relevant articles addressing the efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in comparison to warfarin for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in morbidly obese patients (BMI > 40 kg/m2 and/or weight > 120 kg). A total of 834 records were recovered, 312 of which were removed as duplicates. Finally, seventeen studies [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis. A detailed PRISMA diagram illustrating the study selection steps is presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The preferred reference items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow chart depicting the screening process for the included studies

Full size image

Baseline characteristics of the included studies

A total of 17 studies [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 142,256 patients were included, and the mean age was 65.7 years. A summary of the included studies and their baseline characteristics can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of included studies and their baseline characteristics. (NR = Not Reported)
Full size table

Risk of bias assessment

Two RCTs [20, 22] were evaluated using the RoB-2 tool to assess the risk of bias [35]. The assessment led to judgments of “low risk of bias,” “some concerns,” or “high risk of bias”. Both included trials showed a low risk of bias, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias assessment using Risk of Bias Tool 2 (ROB-2)

Full size image

In the case of cohort studies, the Newcastle–Ottawa score was used for assessment, where most of the studies were of good quality and had a low risk of bias, except for two studies that were of fair quality [18, 27] and one that was of poor quality [26]. The detailed scoring system is provided in Supplementary File 2.

Data synthesis and meta-analysis

Since our analysis included both single- and double-arm studies, we performed two different analyses for each category. First, double-arm trials have shown that patients who received NOACs had better prognosis and safety than patients who received warfarin; however, the pooled data showed heterogeneity, so we conducted a subgroup analysis to resolve the inconsistency and reduce the heterogeneity. The patients were divided according to baseline comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, peripheral artery disease, old stroke and CHA2D2-VASc score) or possible outcomes (stroke, major bleeding, and minor bleeding). Some subgroups required further sensitivity analysis, which was conducted using the “leave-one-out test”, for which all the data are provided in Supplementary 3. Finally, we performed a single-arm analysis to evaluate the outcomes of the studies with no comparison of different anticoagulation methods (only the NOAC group).

Double-arm studies

Diabetes mellitus (DM)

Five studies [19, 20, 25, 27, 29] included obese patients with diabetes, and the pooled data showed that this population was highly significantly more likely to benefit from NOACs than from warfarin (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.69–0.82; p < 0.00001) (Fig. 3). However, a source of heterogeneity was observed, so we performed a sensitivity analysis with the “leave-one-out test”, which did not yield any significant difference in the overall outcome (Supplementary 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of the random model of NOACs vs. warfarin in the subgroup of obese patients (>120 kg). NOAC = Nonvitamin K antagonist Oral Anticoagulant; CI = confidence interval

Full size image

Hypertension and heart failure

Six studies [19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29] reported hypertensive and heart failure patients in our target population. The pooled data showed a significant effect of NOACs compared with warfarin for both hypertension and heart failure (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.27–1.01; p = 0.05 and OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.62–0.77]; p < 0.00001, respectively) (Fig. 3). The overall result in the case of hypertension was borderline, and by examination using a funnel plot, publication bias was observed.

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD)

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD) were defined as baseline characteristics in four studies [23, 25, 27, 29]. Pooled data showed NOACs to be superior to warfarin in overall outcome measures in the IHD group (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67–0.96]; p = 0.01). However, these differences were not significant in the PAD group (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.61–1.31; p = 0.58) (Fig. 4). A source of high heterogeneity was observed in the IHD subgroup (P < 0.00001, I2 = 90%), so we performed a sensitivity analysis by the “leave-one-out test”, where the pooled data were homogenous, and confirmed the statistical significance of the overall outcome in favor of NOACs (Supplementary 3).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot using the random model of NOACs vs. Warfarin in the subgroup of obese patients (>120 kg). NOAC = Nonvitamin K antagonist Oral Anticoagulant; CI = confidence interval

Full size image

Smoking

Three studies [20, 27, 29] reported that smokers were not significantly different between the treatment groups (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.86–1.21; p = 0.83) (Fig. 4).

Old stroke

Five studies [18, 20, 25, 27, 29] addressed the presence of old stroke in obese patients prior to treatment. The resulting data revealed a nonsignificant difference between NOACs and warfarin (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.81–1.42; p = 0.62) (Fig. 4). However, heterogeneity was significant, so we performed the “leave-one-out test” excluding the Briasoulis et al. study [25], which caused the data to be homogenous and, interestingly, changed the result to statistical significance in favor of warfarin (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: [1.02–1.38]; p = 0.02) (Supplementary 3).

CHA2DS2 - VASc

Regarding the CHA2DS2-VASC score, five studies reported data according to the different scores [19,20,21, 23, 27]. The overall estimate demonstrated that NOACs are more favorable than warfarin for obese patients (MD = − 0.39, 95% CI: [− 0.61 – − 0.17]; p = 0.0005) (Fig. 4).

Outcome analysis

Seven studies [16, 18,19,20,21, 23, 25] have evaluated the outcomes of stroke, major bleeding, and minor bleeding in morbidly obese patients after anticoagulation therapy. In the case of stroke, the pooled data showed a significant difference between the NOAC group and the warfarin group (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.60–0.80; p < 0.00001) (Fig. 5). Regarding major bleeding events, pooled data showed that patients taking NOACs had a significantly lower risk than patients taking warfarin did (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.41–0.70; p < 0.00001) (Fig. 5). However, heterogeneity was observed, so we performed the “leave one out” test, after which the results remained significant in the NOAC group (Supplementary 3). The analysis of minor bleeding outcomes demonstrated that NOACs had a nonsignificant effect on reducing the risk of bleeding (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.47–1.09; p = 0.12) (Fig. 5). However, after sensitivity analysis, the results became highly significant in favor of NOACs (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.49–0.61; p < 0.00001) (Supplementary 3 Fig. 6).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot generated using a random model of outcome in the subgroup of obese patients (> 120 kg) treated with NOACs vs. warfarin. NOAC = Nonvitamin K antagonist Oral Anticoagulant; CI = confidence interval

Full size image

Single-arm studies

Several of the included studies used only NOACs and not warfarin alone; only obese patients (BMI ≥ 40) and control patients (BMI < 40) were included, so we performed a single-arm analysis using Open Meta Analyst.

The pooled prevalence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension among obese patients who received nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants derived from 7 studies including a total of 2654 patients was [0.496; 95% CI: (0.397–0.595) and 0.861; 95% CI: (0.778–0.944)], respectively, for detecting DM and HTN risk (Supplementary 4). Other comorbidities were also analysed, and the results showed a high risk of IHD, heart failure, old cerebral vascular accidents, and stroke (represented by the CHA2D2-VASc score) in morbidly obese (Supplementary 4 Fig. 7). Regarding outcomes, including stroke as an outcome, major and minor bleeding events, and mortality rate, all presented a high risk of development among patients who received NOACs (Supplementary 4).

Publication bias

The funnel plot presented an asymmetric pattern for baseline hypertensive obese patients treated with NOACs; therefore, the risk of publication bias cannot be excluded.

Discussion

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of a total of 17 studies [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] comparing the efficacy of NOACs versus warfarin in morbidly obese patients (BMI > 40 or weight > 120 kg). Our study combined observational and experimental data to include the largest number of patients possible in this category and compare outcomes.

The health impacts of AF extend beyond stroke and are known to increase mortality, myocardial infarction, heart failure incidence, hospitalization, and other cardiovascular disease risks [38]. Generally, NOACs have equivalent or superior outcomes to warfarin in nonvalvular AF patients [39]. Due to the variable distribution of the drug in the body, the anticoagulant efficacy of NOACs, which are lipophilic drugs, may be impacted by body weight [40]. Subsequently, pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated that in overweight patients, typical fixed-dose medication concentrations decrease with increasing volume of distribution [41]. Due to drug accumulation, this could result in undesirable drug levels, a possible increase in the risk of ischaemic events, and long-term side effects that are presently not well defined. Therefore, the current meta-analysis further stresses the importance, safety, and efficacy of NOACs in individuals with AF and a high body weight (> 120 kg).

Huang [29] and colleagues reported that NOAC use was significantly associated with a greater risk of bleeding. However, after subgroup analysis, patients with a BMI ≥45 kg/m2 had a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of composite thromboembolism, an increased risk of composite bleeding, and a reduced risk of mortality when comparing dabigatran to warfarin (HR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.45–2.23; p = 1), (HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.83–2.08]; p = 0.25) and (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.28–1.38]; p = 0.24), respectively). This highlights the importance of subgroup analysis and how overweight patients may have a wrongful estimation of the effect when overweight is combined with multiple weight groups. We accordingly ensured that our analysis was based on suitable subcategorizations for each risk factor and possible outcome to eliminate any possible misinterpretations.

Regarding overall bleeding risk, a study by Bodega et al. [26] found no statistically significant differences between different body weight groups (p = 0.125). Nevertheless, there was a trend toward a reduction in adverse events in relation to the increase in body weight. Additionally, all-cause deaths were not significantly different among the overweight, normal, or underweight groups (p = 0.829). A possible explanation for this tendency is that patients with an elevated body weight may have altered medication pharmacokinetics, which decreases bleeding but does not increase thromboembolic risk [26]. Notably, the underweight patients in this study tended to be older, have poorer creatinine clearance, and be prescribed more low-dose NOACs. These results clearly show that individuals with a smaller body distribution volume should receive less medication to lower the risk of overdose and, consequently, hemorrhagic events.

The ARISTOTLE trial was a major trial on NOACs and provided many insights and post hoc analyses. In our review, two studies discussed insights from this trial. The first is a study by Fudim et al. [17], who concluded that the efficacy and safety of NOACs, specifically apixaban, in comparison to warfarin were the same for both patients with very high body weights and those without very high body weights. The high-birthweight group results were mostly insignificant except for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (p value = 0.0363). Consequently, the second analysis by Hohnloser et al. [22] showed that the effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin were maintained across different weight groups, with markedly greater decreases in major bleeding in underweight or normal AF patients than in overweight AF patients (interaction p value = 0.016). In patients with AF across the weight spectrum, including low- and very high-weight patients, apixaban appears to be advantageous to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety for stroke prevention (interaction p value> 0.05). These conclusions all seem to favor the use of apixaban in patients with AF irrespective of body weight. Our overall outcome analysis supported these findings, where we observed a significantly reduced risk of major bleeding in favor of NOACs, including apixaban (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.41–0.70]; p < 0.00001).

A recent Japanese meta-analysis on the obesity paradox and how the obese population may have better health profiles than individuals with a normal BMI stated that, in comparison to those in the normal-weight group, the overweight and obese groups had decreased relative risks (RRs) of 0.87 (95% CI 0.67–1.15) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.59–1.14) for the composite end points of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), all-cause death, and cardiovascular death, respectively, even in patients receiving oral anticoagulants [42]. These findings are comparable to our findings in which we revealed an overall significant decrease in stroke incidence after receiving NOACs in the morbidly obese group (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.60–0.80; p < 0.00001). However, we discovered a significant risk of death, with an estimated value of 0.029 (95% CI: [0.019–0.038]; (p < 0.001); this finding contrasts with the findings of other studies, which could be attributed to differences in confounders and ethnicity since they included only Japanese patients, while our review was not restricted to a certain race.

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of our meta-analysis include the fact that we included very recent studies (2017–2023). The sources of heterogeneity were well explored by using random effect models and the leave out test for sensitivity analysis, which in turn showed no significant difference in most results. To our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first to include multiple studies, including RCTs, single-arm studies, post hoc analyses, and cohort studies, to compare the efficacy of NOACs to that of warfarin in morbidly obese patients (BMI > 40 kg/m2 and/or weight > 120 kg).

The primary drawback of our meta-analysis is the variety of study designs included, which in turn caused high heterogeneity, although we addressed this issue in our analysis. Furthermore, since the design of the post hoc analysis studies does not follow the population or randomization models of statistical inference, the results of the analyses included in our review could be misleading. Finally, we considered studies written in English only, so our findings cannot be generalized. Another important limitation is that the funnel plot for studies discussing hypertension in morbidly obese patients presented asymmetry; thus, publication bias cannot be completely excluded.

Future directions

Real-world reports on the outcomes of NOACs versus warfarin in patients with AF with a BMI > 40 kg/m2 are mostly limited by small sample sizes. Thus, for a more thorough evaluation and validation of the use of NOACs in morbid obesity, larger retrospective studies, as well as randomized, controlled prospective studies, are needed.

Conclusion

Overall, our meta-analysis showed a generally favorable efficacy and safety profile of NOACs vs warfarin in morbidly obese patient groups (> 120 kg). Some outcomes were not statistically significant; thus, to verify these findings and compare efficacy with other treatment modalities, larger multicenter randomized controlled trials are advised to better assess their safety and efficacy in this particular weight group.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

NOACs:

Nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

BMI:

Body mass index

AF:

Atrial fibrillation

References

  1. Andrews M, Nelson BP. Atrial fibrillation. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73(1):482–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Staerk L, Sherer JA, Ko D, Benjamin EJ, Helm RH. Atrial fibrillation: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and clinical outcomes. Circ Res. 2017;120(9):1501–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Goudis CA, Korantzopoulos P, Ntalas IV, Kallergis EM, Ketikoglou DG. Obesity and atrial fibrillation: a comprehensive review of the pathophysiological mechanisms and links. J Cardiol. 2015;66(5):361–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lavie CJ, Pandey A, Lau DH, Alpert MA, Sanders P. Obesity and atrial fibrillation prevalence, pathogenesis, and prognosis: effects of weight loss and exercise. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(16):2022–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the European heart rhythm association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brieger D, Amerena J, Attia J, Bajorek B, Chan K, Connell C. NHFA CSANZ atrial fibrillation guideline working group National Heart Foundation of Australia and the Cardiac Society of Australia and new Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation 2018. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27:1209–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, Ahlsson A, Atar D, Casadei B, et al. Scientific document group. 2016 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(38):2893–962.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(21):e1–e76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wallace JL, Reaves AB, Tolley EA, Oliphant CS, Hutchison L, Alabdan NA, et al. Comparison of initial warfarin response in obese patients versus non-obese patients. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2013;36:96–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCaughan GJB, Favaloro EJ, Pasalic L, Curnow J. Anticoagulation at the extremes of body weight: choices and dosing. Expert Rev Hematol. 2018;11(10):817–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Proietti M, Guiducci E, Cheli P, Lip GY. Is There an Obesity Paradox for Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Trials. Stroke. 2017;48(4):857–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou Y, Ma J, Zhu W. Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation across BMI categories: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2020;20:51–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Javed S, Gupta D, Lip GY. Obesity and atrial fibrillation: making inroads through fat. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021;7(1):59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lamelas P, Schwalm J, Leong D, Jolly S, Mehta S, Bangdiwala S, et al. Varying effects of body mass index and mortality in different risk groups. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122(7):1155–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pouwels S, Topal B, Knook MT, Celik A, Sundbom M, Ribeiro R, et al. Interaction of obesity and atrial fibrillation: an overview of pathophysiology and clinical management. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2019;17(3):209–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi Y, Kushnir M, Billett HH. Apixaban is safe and effective in morbidly obese patients: a retrospective analysis of 390 patients with BMI ≥40. Blood. 2017;130:1105.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fudim M, Lopes R, Alexander J, Wojdyla D, Ezekowitz J, Hanna M, et al. The efficacy and safety of Apixaban versus warfarin are preserved in patients with atrial fibrillation and extremely high body weight: insights from the Aristotle study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(11)

  18. Kido K, Ngorsuraches S. Comparing the efficacy and safety of direct Oral anticoagulants with warfarin in the morbidly obese population with atrial fibrillation. Ann Pharmacother. 2019;53(2):165–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peterson ED, Ashton V, Chen YW, Wu B, Spyropoulos AC. Comparative effectiveness, safety, and costs of rivaroxaban and warfarin among morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation. Am Heart J. 2019;212:113–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boriani G, Ruff CT, Kuder JF, Shi M, Lanz HJ, Rutman H, et al. Relationship between body mass index and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with edoxaban or warfarin in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(19):1541–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kushnir M, Choi Y, Eisenberg R, Rao D, Tolu S, Gao J, et al. Efficacy and safety of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with warfarin in patients with morbid obesity: a single-Centre, retrospective analysis of chart data. Lancet Haematol. 2019;6(7):e359–e65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hohnloser SH, Fudim M, Alexander JH, Wojdyla DM, Ezekowitz JA, Hanna M, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Extremes in Body Weight. Circulation. 2019;139(20):2292–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Deitelzweig S, Keshishian A, Kang A, Dhamane AD, Luo X, Li X, et al. Effectiveness and safety of Oral anticoagulants among NVAF patients with obesity: insights from the ARISTOPHANES study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6):1633.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Navarro-Almenzar B, Cerezo-Manchado JJ, Garcia-Candel F. Real life behaviour of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and morbid obesity. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2021;37:100913.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Briasoulis A, Mentias A, Mazur A, Alvarez P, Leira EC, Vaughan Sarrazin MS. Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct Oral anticoagulants in obese patients with atrial fibrillation. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2021;35(2):261–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bodega F, Russi A, Melillo F, Blunda F, Rubino C, Leo G, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and extreme body weight. Eur J Clin Investig. 2022;52(1):e13658.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Barakat AF, Jain S, Masri A, Alkukhun L, Senussi M, Sezer A, et al. Outcomes of direct Oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients across different body mass index categories. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7(5):649–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Coates J, Bitton E, Hendje A, Delate T, Olson KL, Knowles C, et al. Clinical outcomes of dabigatran use in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and weight >120 kg. Thromb Res. 2021;208:176–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Huang CW, Duan L, An J, Sim JJ, Lee MS. Effectiveness and safety of dabigatran in atrial fibrillation patients with severe obesity: a real-world retrospective cohort study. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(12):2982–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wiethorn EE, Bell CM, Wiggins BS. Effectiveness and safety of direct Oral anticoagulants in patients with Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and weighing >/= 120 kilograms versus 60-120 kilograms. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2021;21(5):545–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. O'Kane CP, Avalon JCO, Lacoste JL, Fang W, Bianco CM, Davisson L, et al. Apixaban and rivaroxaban use for atrial fibrillation in patients with obesity and BMI >/=50 kg/m(2). Pharmacotherapy. 2022;42(2):112–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Al Sulaiman K, Badreldin HA, Korayem GB, Alenazi AA, Alsuwayyid F, Alrashidi A, et al. Evaluation of Apixaban safety and effectiveness in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study. Thromb J. 2022;20(1):25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA group* t. preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Armstrong R, Pienaar E, Brunton G, Roberts H, Shepherd J, Kistjansson E, et al. Reviews in health promotion and public health in Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. [cited 2009 Oct 19].

  37. Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Meta-analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Alonso A, Almuwaqqat Z, Chamberlain A. Mortality in atrial fibrillation. Is it changing? Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2021;31(8):469–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, Hoffman EB, Deenadayalu N, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383(9921):955–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Scaglione F. New oral anticoagulants: comparative pharmacology with vitamin K antagonists. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(2):69–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137(2):263–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhu W, Wan R, Liu F, Hu J, Huang L, Li J, et al. Relation of body mass index with adverse outcomes among patients with atrial fibrillation: a Meta-analysis and systematic review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(9):e004006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Code availability (software application or custom code)

Cochrane Review Manager software 5.4.

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Port Said University, Port Said, Egypt

    Sohil Elfar

  2. Faculty of Pharmacy, October 6th University, Cairo, Egypt

    Somaya Abdulbaset Mahmoud

  3. Faculty of Pharmacy, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Samar Hamdi

  4. Nutrition support pharmacist, CCHE57357, Cairo, Egypt

    Aya Ahmed Emad

  5. Faculty of Medicine, Elfayoum University, Elfayoum, Egypt

    Mohamed Abd-ElGawad

  6. MARS-Global, London, UK

    Nouran A. Taha

Authors
  1. Sohil Elfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Somaya Abdulbaset Mahmoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samar Hamdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aya Ahmed Emad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohamed Abd-ElGawad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nouran A. Taha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed to the study. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sohil Elfar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. The study was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022362493.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that they are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search Strategy.

Additional file 2.

New Castle Ottawa scale assessment (NOS).

Additional file 3.

Forest plot showing the sensitivity analysis using the “leave-one-out test” in obese patients (120 kg) with diabetes mellitus. CI = confidence interval.

Additional file 4.

Forest plot showing the prevalence of comorbid conditions in single-arm studies comparing NOACs to warfarin in morbidly obese patients.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elfar, S., Mahmoud, S.A., Hamdi, S. et al. The safety and efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 24, 74 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-03731-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-03731-3

Keywords

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2261

Contact us