ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2013
Practical issues, limitations, and periprocedural management of the NOAC's.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacoepidemiologic study of warfarin prescription in a Brazilian tertiary hospital.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2014Trial
- New Anticoagulants for the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2017Review
- Using new oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery.Current rheumatology reports · 2015Review
- Acquired hemophilia with inhibitors presenting as an emergency: misinterpretation of clotting results during direct oral anticoagulation.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Urgent monitoring of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a tentative approach based on routine laboratory tests.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2014Article
- An updated review of target-specific oral anticoagulants used in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolic disease, and acute coronary syndromes.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent introduction of new oral anticoagulants or novel target specific oral anticoagulants (TSOA's) is likely to have a major impact in the years ahead. Many large clinical trials have been published in the past few years showing these agents are generally safe and effective in several clinical settings including acute venous thromboembolic disease, prophylaxis in the postoperative setting, prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation, and in the management of acute coronary syndromes. Reported rates of overall and intracranial bleeding are lower compared to oral vitamin K antagonists. Other major advantages of oral direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran) and Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban and apixaban) include rapid onset and offset of action and predictable pharmacodynamics with relatively wide therapeutic window allowing for unmonitored drug use. The relatively short half-life, rapid onset of action, and predictable pharmacokinetics should simplify periprocedural use of these agents. In this review we focus on some practical issues related to TSOA's including some limitations, potential complications, considerations to be made for certain patient populations, periprocedural management and issues pertaining to transition to and from these novel agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.