To the Editor: The latest American and European guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OA) unless contraindicated, targeting an international normalized ratio between 2 and 3 for patients aged 75 and older with atrial fibrillation (AF) and associated risk factors (arterial hypertension, heart failure, systolic dysfunction according to echocardiography, or diabetes mellitus) and for secondary prevention.1 Aspirin may be used when other risk factors are absent or when OA is contraindicated,1 although even recent cross-sectional studies have shown that only half of patients with AF at a high risk of stroke effectively receive anticoagulants and that this proportion declines with age.2,3

Guidelines are based on a meta-analysis4 of five unblinded randomized controlled trials (Table 1). In these trials, OA resulted in a 36% lower risk of stroke (14–52%) than aspirin. Three randomized trials have been published since the latest guidelines were issued, namely the Atrial Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Event (ACTIVE W),5 the Warfarin Versus Aspirin for Stroke Prevention in Octogenarians with Atrial Fibrillation (WASPO) trial,6 and the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged (BAFTA) study7 (Table 1). ACTIVE W compared OA with aspirin (75–100 mg) plus clopidogrel and showed that OA was significantly more effective. WASPO focused on primary prevention in octogenarians with permanent AF but was interrupted prematurely. In the BAFTA study, patient screening and recruitment were organized systematically across general practitioner practices in the United Kingdom. Patients could be excluded if their physician thought, in view of their ischemic and hemorrhagic risk factors, that they should, or should not, receive warfarin. How the general practitioners formed their judgment is not specified. The results favored OA.

Table 1. Randomized Trials Comparing Aspirin and Oral Anticoagulation for the Prevention of Thrombotic Events Linked to Atrial Fibrillation*
CharacteristicsAFASAK 1European Atrial Fibrillation TrialStroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation II StudyAFASAK 2Primary prevention of Arterial Thromboembolism in non-rheumatic Atrial Fibrillation in primary care trialAtrial Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Event5Warfarin versus Aspirin for Stroke Prevention in Octogenarians with atrial fibrillation6Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study7
  • *

    Estimation based on a sample.

  • Patients aged ≥75.

  • Major hemorrhage.

  • AFASAK=Copenhagen Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin and Anticoagulation Study; OA=oral anticoagulation; miniAVK=low-dose oral anticoagulation; ECG=electrocardiogram; NSP=not specified; NS=not significant.

Date of publication19891993199419981999200620072007
Number of CONSORT criteria respected (/22)1819192022161822
DesignOA, aspirin, or placeboOA, aspirin, or placeboOA or aspirinOA, aspirin, aspirin+miniAVK, or miniAVKOA, aspirin, or miniAVKOA or aspirin+clopidogrelOA or aspirinOA or aspirin
Particularities Secondary prevention2 age groups (< or >75) <78 Aged 80–90Aged >75
Mode of recruitmentClinical ECGNSPRegister ECGClinical ECGPopulationNSPGeriatricsPopulation
Exclusion by general practitioneryesyesyesyesnoNSPnoyes
Patients identified, n2,546NSPNSP2,820*1,837NSPNSP4,639
Patients included, n1,0076691,1006773946,706759,730
Age, mean71.771.170.373.570.571.083.081.5
Duration of follow-upNSP2.
Arm favored by main endpointOAOANSNSNSOANSOA
Arm favored by stroke resultsNSPOANSNSNSOANSOA
Arm favored by bleeding resultsNSPAspirinAspirinNSNSNSNSNS
Patients from current study (n=83) who would have been eligible, n33103012217

To examine the external validity of these trials with respect to a population of frail elderly patients with AF, they were critically analyzed, with a focus on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, to assess the potential eligibility of a population of geriatric subjects.

During a period of 6 consecutive months, all patients (n=83) admitted to an acute geriatric unit with permanent or paroxysmal AF were identified. Their mean age was 89, and they were at a high risk of ischemic events (mean CHADS2 score8=2.7±1.2) and bleeding (mean HEMORR2HAGES score9=3.0±1.3). Seventeen of these patients (20%) could have been included in at least one of the eight trials, because they fit the published inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). The main factors that would probably have excluded the patients in the current study was their limited life expectancy in 15 cases (11 because of severe dementia), poor adherence to treatment in 13 cases, and progressive cancer in eight cases.

Recruitment was organized systematically in only two of the eight published studies, and the attending physicians were allowed to refuse anticoagulation for their patients, regardless of any explicit exclusion criteria, in at least five of the eight trials (Table 1). These two facts would have resulted in selection biases, the most fragile and oldest patients likely being excluded.

Dans' method was used to assess external validity.10 It consists of posing six questions aimed at identifying a possible difference in the risk–benefit ratio of a treatment between a trial population and a population to which one wishes to apply the trialists' conclusions. Six negative responses are required for the trial results to be applicable to another population. With respect to the population of the current study, the answer would be yes to the third question: “Are there important differences in patient compliance that may diminish the treatment response?” and to the fifth question: “Do my patients have comorbid conditions that significantly alter the potential benefits and risks of treatment?” Dans' approach,10 without casting doubt on the superiority of anticoagulation over aspirin for thrombotic prevention, calls into question the reported difference in the risk–benefit ratios of the two treatments in the geriatric setting.

New trials involving very frail elderly patients are difficult to envisage, for practical and ethical reasons. Centralized registers recording the outcomes of all patients with AF receiving OA could provide clinicians with assistance when weighing the potential risks and benefits of this treatment in elderly patients at the highest risk.

These results thus highlight the poor external validity, with respect to frail elderly patients, of clinical trials comparing OA with aspirin in patients with AF. For such patients, aspirin, or therapeutic abstention, remains an alternative. Although aspirin carries a clear risk of bleeding, its known efficacy and simplicity make it an option for the most fragile patients with AF.


  1. Top of page

Conflict of Interest: The editor in chief has reviewed the conflict of interest checklist provided by the authors and has determined that the authors have no financial or any other kind of personal conflicts with this paper.

Author Contributions: Aline Corvol: major contribution to study design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, drafting of the article, and final approval. Cécile Legendre, Coralie Jean, and Hayat Lahjibi-Paulet: data acquisition, critical revision of the manuscript, final approval. Olivier Saint-Jean: major contribution to study design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript, final approval. Dominique Somme: conception and design of the study, data analysis and interpretation, critical revision of the manuscript, final approval.

Sponsor's Role: None.


  1. Top of page
  • 1
    Fuster V, Ryden LE, Cannom DS et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation–executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:854906.
  • 2
    Waldo AL, Becker RC, Tapson VF et al. Hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke are not being provided with adequate anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:17291736.
  • 3
    Hansen ML, Gadsboll N, Rasmussen S et al. Clinical consequences of hospital variation in use of oral anticoagulant therapy after first-time admission for atrial fibrillation. J Intern Med 2009;265:335344.
  • 4
    Hart RG, Benavente O, McBride R et al. Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:492501.
  • 5
    Connolly S, Pogue J, Hart R et al. Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE W): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;367:19031912.
  • 6
    Rash A, Downes T, Portner R et al. A randomised controlled trial of warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in octogenarians with atrial fibrillation (WASPO). Age Ageing 2007;36:151156.
  • 7
    Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study, BAFTA): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:493503.
  • 8
    Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W et al. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: Results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA 2001;285:28642870.
  • 9
    Gage BF, Yan Y, Milligan PE et al. Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: Results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF). Am Heart J 2006;151:713719.
  • 10
    Dans AL, Dans LF, Guyatt GH et al. Users' guides to the medical literature: XIV. How to decide on the applicability of clinical trial results to your patient. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1998;279:545549.