ReviewClinical cardiology2013
Advances in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: enhanced risk stratification combined with the newer oral anticoagulants.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender differences in patients with atrial fibrillation.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2013Trial
- Stroke and bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation: navigating the alphabet soup of risk-score acronyms (CHADS2 , CHA2 DS2 -VASc, R2 CHADS2 , HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and more).Clinical cardiology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have an increased stroke risk compared with those in sinus rhythm, although the absolute risk for individual patients is modulated by the presence of various additional risk factors. Patient selection for oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention is based on risks of stroke and bleeding. Although CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke or transient ischemic attack) is the most widely used scheme for evaluating stroke risk in patients with AF, several other stroke risk factors are not included; therefore, many patients' stroke risk may be underestimated, contributing to the underuse of anticoagulants. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of patients are categorized as being at moderate risk (CHADS2 = 1), and there has been some ambiguity regarding optimum thromboprophylaxis in this group. The refinement of CHADS2 , CHA2 DS2 -VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age 75 years [2 points], Diabetes mellitus, Stroke or transient ischemic attack [2 points], Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category [female]), considers additional risk factors. Its main advantage is its ability to identify patients truly at low risk of thromboembolism (CHA2 DS2 -VASc = 0), who are unlikely to benefit from antithrombotic therapy. For all others, an oral anticoagulant may be the preferred approach, simplifying clinical decision making. Implementation of CHA2 DS2 -VASc may also result in an increased proportion of patients receiving anticoagulation. The emergence of newer oral anticoagulants that can be given without routine coagulation monitoring, with improved benefit-risk profiles vs vitamin K antagonists, promises to simplify therapy for patients with AF at risk of stroke. This, coupled with advances in stroke risk stratification, is expected to improve patient outcomes and reduce the burden of AF-related stroke.
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.