↓ Skip to main content

An early evaluation of bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants

Overview of attention for article published in Current Medical Research & Opinion, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An early evaluation of bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants
Published in
Current Medical Research & Opinion, January 2016
DOI 10.1185/03007995.2015.1131676
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steve Deitelzweig, Amanda Bruno, Jeffrey Trocio, Natalie Tate, Kiran Gupta, Jay Lin, Melissa Lingohr-Smith

Abstract

Clinical trials have demonstrated direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are efficacious for reducing stroke risk among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with differences in the reduction of bleeding risks vs. warfarin. The objective of this study was to assess bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized NVAF patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, in the US. Patients (≥18 years) with a discharge diagnosis of NVAF who received apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban during hospitalization were identified from the Premier Hospital database (1/1/2012-3/31/2014) and the Cerner Health Facts hospital database (1/1/2012-8/31/2014). Patients identified from each database were analyzed separately and grouped into 3 cohorts depending on which DOAC was received. Patient characteristics, hospital resource use and costs, and frequency of readmissions within 1 month were evaluated. Among study populations identified from the Premier database (N=74,730) and the Cerner database (N=14,201), patients who received apixaban were older, had greater comorbidity, and had higher stroke and bleeding risks. After controlling for patient characteristics, including comorbidity and stroke and bleeding risks, compared with patients who received apixaban during their index hospitalizations, the odds of bleeding-related hospital readmissions were significantly greater by 1.4-fold (p<0.01) for patients who received rivaroxaban and 1.2-fold (p=0.16) numerically greater for patients who received dabigatran among patients identified from the Premier Hospital database. Among patients in the Cerner Health Facts hospital database, bleeding-related hospital readmissions were significantly greater by 1.6-fold (p=0.04) for patients who received rivaroxaban and 1.3-fold (p=0.30) numerically greater for patients who received dabigatran compared to patients who received apixaban. No causal relationship between treatment and outcomes can be concluded. NVAF patients using different DOACs had different characteristics, including stroke and bleeding risks. Use of rivaroxaban, compared to apixaban was associated with significantly greater risk of bleeding-related readmissions across two database claims analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Slovenia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 87 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Other 10 11%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Mathematics 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 28 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Current Medical Research & Opinion
#2,680
of 3,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,035
of 399,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Medical Research & Opinion
#43
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.