Non-valvular atrial fibrillation XXXX with none or one additional risk factor of the CHA2DS2-VASc score. A comprehensive net clinical benefit analysis for @entity1229 , @entity117 , or no therapy.

@entity1 @entity64 @entity932 @entity548 @entity117 @entity204 @entity1229
UNASSIGNED: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) to prevent @entity64 has to be balanced against the potential harm of serious @entity548 , especially @entity932 ( @entity932 ). We determined the net clinical benefit (NCB) balancing effectiveness and safety of no antithrombotic therapy, @entity117 and @entity1229 in AF @entity1 with none or one @entity64 risk factor. Using Danish registries, we determined NCB using various definitions intrinsic to our cohort (Danish weights at 1 and 5 year follow-up), with risk weights which were derived from the hazard ratio (HR) of @entity204 following an event, relative to HR of @entity204 after @entity64 . When @entity117 was compared to no treatment, NCB was neutral or negative for both risk strata. For @entity1229 vs no treatment, NCB using Danish weights was neutral where no risk factors were present and using five years follow-up. For one @entity64 risk factor, NCB was positive for @entity1229 vs no treatment, for one year and five year follow-up. For @entity1229 vs @entity117 use in @entity1 with no risk factors, NCB was positive with one year follow-up, but neutral with five year follow-up. With one risk factor, NCB was generally positive for @entity1229 vs @entity117 . In conclusion, we show a positive overall advantage (i.e. positive NCB) of effective @entity64 prevention with OAC, compared to no therapy or @entity117 with one additional @entity64 risk factor, using Danish weights. 'Low risk' AF @entity1 with no additional @entity64 risk factors (i.e.CHA2DS2-VASc 0 in males, 1 in females) do not derive any advantage (neutral or negative NCB) with @entity117 , nor with @entity1229 therapy in the long run.
