Prevalence and Factors Associated with Receiving a Prescription for a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation on Hospice Admission.

Phuong Y Duong; Emily K Short; Jennifer Tjia; Matthew Alcusky; Mary Lynn McPherson; Jon P Furuno

doi:10.1080/15360288.2026.2724958

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42680548

Prevalence and Factors Associated with Receiving a Prescription for a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation on Hospice Admission.

Phuong Y Duong·Emily K Short·Jennifer Tjia·Matthew Alcusky·Mary Lynn McPherson·Jon P Furuno

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is prevalent in hospice care, but anticoagulation decisions in this population are not well understood. In this cross-sectional study, we described the prevalence and characteristics associated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescription on hospice admission. We used electronic health data from adult decedents with AF in a large, for-profit hospice chain in the United States between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019. We used multivariable logistic regression with results reported as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Among 13,233 decedents, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 84.2 (9.9) years, 53.6% were female, 65.1% were White, and 56.1% were referred to hospice from a hospital. Mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score were 3.8 (1.4) for males and 4.8 (1.3) for females, and mean (SD) HAS-BLED score was 2.2 (1.0). Overall, 8% of patients received a DOAC prescription on hospice admission. Characteristics associated with receiving a DOAC prescription included PPS scores of ≥ 20% (compared to scores < 20%), and receiving hospice care at home, nursing home, assisted living facility, or residential care home (compared to inpatient hospice). Further studies about the risks and benefits of DOAC use are needed to optimize decision-making in this population.

Explore related subjects

DOAC Direct oral anticoagulant anticoagulant atrial fibrillation hospice Journal Article

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Phuong Y Duong, Emily K Short, Jennifer Tjia, Matthew Alcusky, Mary Lynn McPherson, Jon P Furuno. 2026-09-01. Prevalence and Factors Associated with Receiving a Prescription for a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation on Hospice Admission.. https://doi.org/10.1080/15360288.2026.2724958

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article resource Atrial Fibrillation subject Journal Article subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Direct Oral Anticoagulants as Primary or Secondary Treatment for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) and Associated Thromboembolism (HITT)-A Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is associated with a high risk for thrombosis. The role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is still emerging and data are limited considering efficacy and safety among patients with HIT. The aim of this review is to evaluate current data on DOACs as primary or secondary treatment among patients with HIT. METHODS: This is a systematic review utilising Pubmed, Scopus and Embase online databases. Eligible studies were published up to December 2024 evaluating DOACs as primary or secondary treatment among patients with HIT and/or associated thrombosis (HITT). Primary outcomes included thrombosis rate (TR) and bleeding rate (BR) during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 44 publications were included (29 case reports, 5 case studies and 10 cohort studies [n > 10 patients]). Regarding treatment, 19 articles evaluated only rivaroxaban, 7 articles only apixaban, 11 articles only dabigatran and 7 articles more than one regimen. A total of 352 patients were included. Overall, 190 patients (53.8%) were given DOAC as primary treatment whereas 162 patients were given a parenteral treatment first and continued with a DOAC. Mean nadir platelet count at diagnosis was 63 000/μL. HITT rate was 190/352 (53.9%; 8% had arterial thrombosis). Mean follow-up was 7.6 months. TR was 20/352 (Pooled proportion = 0.064 [95% CI = 0.042-0.092]) (30% of them were new thromboses without initial thrombosis), and BR was 9/352 (Pooled proportion = 0.039 [95% CI = 0.022-0.062]). Finally, there was no difference found regarding TR and BR between primary or secondary treatment, and among different regimens. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs are associated with low rates of thrombosis and major bleeding among patients treated for HIT or HITT, either as primary or secondary treatment. However, the certainty of evidence is very low because of the quality and limitations of the available studies.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-associated thrombosis is a condition associated with high mortality rates, yet limited evidence exists regarding the safety and effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), focusing on a fixed follow-up period based on clinical practice guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis over a 6-month follow-up period. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to 30 June, 2025. Recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials and 28 cohort studies were included in our systematic review. After applying the criteria for a 6-month follow-up period, five randomized controlled trials and 16 cohort studies with 49,824 patients were analyzed in the meta-analysis. In randomized controlled trials, DOACs showed a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.87) compared with LMWH, with a non-significant increase in major bleeding (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.87-1.88) and no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.18). Cohort studies demonstrated a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76) with DOACs, a non-significant reduction in major bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.07), and a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer-associated thrombosis, DOACs demonstrated a decrease in recurrent venous thromboembolism without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality. A non-significant increase in the risk of major bleeding was recorded in randomized controlled trials, but not in cohort studies. DOACs may provide greater effectiveness for cancer-associated thrombosis compared with LMWH.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) vs. non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in left ventricular assist device recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) prolong survival in end-stage heart failure, and warfarin thromboprophylaxis is recommended to prevent device thrombosis and thromboembolic complications. When bleeding occurs or emergency surgery is required, rapid anticoagulation reversal is critical. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) provides rapid reversal; however, its risk-benefit profile in LVAD recipients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PCC with non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched through June 2025 for studies of PCC versus non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used to pool arm-level estimates and to pool head-to-head comparisons using mean differences or risk ratios (RRs). RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 779 patients were included. Arm-level pooled estimates for PCC versus non-PCC comparators were 24.0% versus 15.8% for mortality, 16.5% versus 12.1% for thrombotic events, and 3.1 versus 5.7 for FFP units. Arm-level time to INR correction was longer with PCC overall (16.5 versus 13.6 h), driven by one elective cohort, but faster within the ICH subgroup (6.0 versus 13.7 h). In head-to-head comparisons, PCC achieved faster INR correction than non-PCC comparators (mean difference - 7.6 h; p = 0.001) and required fewer FFP units (-2.6 units; p = 0.019), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14; p = 0.490) or thrombotic events (RR 1.43; p = 0.176). CONCLUSIONS: In head-to-head studies, PCC was associated with faster INR correction and lower FFP requirements than non-PCC strategies, whereas mortality and thrombotic events did not differ significantly. Given the observational evidence, wide confidence intervals, and heterogeneity, equivalent safety cannot be established, and prospective studies are needed to define the relative safety and effectiveness of the two approaches. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: PCC-based strategies may be considered for urgent warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients, particularly when rapid INR reduction or avoidance of large-volume plasma transfusion is clinically important. Treatment decisions should account for the indication, bleeding severity, and underlying thrombotic risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42024573925.

Humans↗