S2808 Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Elderly Patients With Child-Pugh C Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation: A Real-World Perspective

Introduction: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, their safety in patients with advanced liver disease remains uncertain. The 2020 AASLD Practice Guidance highlights that clinical experience with DOACs in cirrhosis is primarily restricted to well-compensated cases. Furthermore, elderly patients—who are often underrepresented in clinical trials—constitute a significant proportion of those requiring hospitalization for AF and cirrhosis. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of DOACs versus warfarin in elderly patients with Child-Pugh C (CPC) cirrhosis and AF. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, identifying patients aged ≥70 years with AF and CPC cirrhosis. Cohorts were defined based on receipt of DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, edoxaban) or warfarin. Propensity score matching was applied to balance demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes included intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 1,774 patients were included, with 887 in each cohort. The mean age was similar between groups (DOAC: 78.0 ± 4.8 years; Warfarin: 78.0 ± 4.7 years), with a comparable proportion of women (DOAC: 38.9%, Warfarin: 39.7%). While differences in baseline labs, including those used to calculate MELD-Na scores, were statistically significant, they are clinically insignificant (MELD-Na: DOAC: 20.7 ± 10.3, vs Warfarin: 22.9 ± 11.2; P = 0.029). The odds of GI bleeding were similar between both groups (OR 1.21, P = 0.311). Compared to patients on warfarin, patients on DOACs had no difference in odds of ICH (OR 0.76, P = 0.509). Lastly, there was no significant difference in odds of all cause mortality between the 2 groups (RR 0.96; P = 0.705). Median survival was 205 days for the DOAC group, versus 305 days for the warfarin group (HR 1.092, P = 0.082). Conclusion: In elderly patients with CPC cirrhosis and AF receiving DOAC therapy, our findings demonstrated similar odds of GI bleeding, ICH and all-cause mortality to those on warfarin therapy. Historically, the AASLD has withheld firm recommendations for DOAC use in patients with CPC due to limited evidence. These findings suggest cautious consideration of DOACs as a potential alternative to warfarin in this high-risk population.

Publication Details

Journal
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001138692.07527.00
Primary Topic
Liver Disease and Transplantation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

S2808 Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Elderly Patients With Child-Pugh C Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation: A Real-World Perspective

The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Liver Disease and Transplantation
article

S2808 Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Elderly Patients With Child-Pugh C Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation: A Real-World Perspective

article en

Abstract

Introduction: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, their safety in patients with advanced liver disease remains uncertain. The 2020 AASLD Practice Guidance highlights that clinical experience with DOACs in cirrhosis is primarily restricted to well-compensated cases. Furthermore, elderly patients—who are often underrepresented in clinical trials—constitute a significant proportion of those requiring hospitalization for AF and cirrhosis. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of DOACs versus warfarin in elderly patients with Child-Pugh C (CPC) cirrhosis and AF. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, identifying patients aged ≥70 years with AF and CPC cirrhosis. Cohorts were defined based on receipt of DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, edoxaban) or warfarin. Propensity score matching was applied to balance demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes included intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 1,774 patients were included, with 887 in each cohort. The mean age was similar between groups (DOAC: 78.0 ± 4.8 years; Warfarin: 78.0 ± 4.7 years), with a comparable proportion of women (DOAC: 38.9%, Warfarin: 39.7%). While differences in baseline labs, including those used to calculate MELD-Na scores, were statistically significant, they are clinically insignificant (MELD-Na: DOAC: 20.7 ± 10.3, vs Warfarin: 22.9 ± 11.2; P = 0.029). The odds of GI bleeding were similar between both groups (OR 1.21, P = 0.311). Compared to patients on warfarin, patients on DOACs had no difference in odds of ICH (OR 0.76, P = 0.509). Lastly, there was no significant difference in odds of all cause mortality between the 2 groups (RR 0.96; P = 0.705). Median survival was 205 days for the DOAC group, versus 305 days for the warfarin group (HR 1.092, P = 0.082). Conclusion: In elderly patients with CPC cirrhosis and AF receiving DOAC therapy, our findings demonstrated similar odds of GI bleeding, ICH and all-cause mortality to those on warfarin therapy. Historically, the AASLD has withheld firm recommendations for DOAC use in patients with CPC due to limited evidence. These findings suggest cautious consideration of DOACs as a potential alternative to warfarin in this high-risk population.

The American Journal of GastroenterologyVol. 120(10S2)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Liver Disease and Transplantation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.