Evidence Hub

Bleeding and New Malignancy Diagnoses After Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Kavi Grewal, Xuesong Wang, Peter C. Austin, C. Jackevicius, I. Nardi-Agmon, Dennis T. Ko, Douglas S. Lee, P. Thavendiranathan et al.

Circulation, 2025

119 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bleeding after starting anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF) may be the first sign of malignancy, especially in elderly individuals. There are no recommendations to guide investigations for malignancy after new-onset bleeding after anticoagulation for AF. Our objective was to determine the association of bleeding after starting oral anticoagulation for AF with new diagnoses of malignancy in a population-wide sample. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data sets of people ≥66 years of age who newly initiated warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants after diagnosis with AF between 2008 and 2022. Follow-up was 2 years after starting anticoagulation. We excluded patients with valvular disease, chronic dialysis, venous thromboembolism, previous cancer, or previously documented bleeding. Bleeding was identified from hospital/emergency department discharge records and physician billings, then handled as a time-varying covariate in cause-specific regression models while adjusting for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was incident malignancy. We also determined the site of origin of the malignancy and the stage at diagnosis if indicated in the Ontario Cancer Registry. Analyses were repeated while limiting the exposure to specific bleeding sites. RESULTS: Among 119 480 people (mean age, 77.4 years; 52% men) who started anticoagulants, 26 037 (21.8%) had documented bleeding, and 5800 (4.9%) were diagnosed with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 119 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free