Trial reportCirculation. Heart failure2013
Benefit of warfarin compared with aspirin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm: a subgroup analysis of WARCEF, a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Circulation. Heart failure, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex differences in pharmacological treatment of heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.European heart journal · 2026Pooled it
- Diabetes mellitus in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a post hoc analysis from the WARCEF trial.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Trial
- Clinical and Echocardiographic Factors Associated With New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure - Subanalysis of the WARCEF Trial.Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society · 2016Trial
- Bleeding Risk and Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Sinus Rhythm and Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Warfarin or Aspirin.The American journal of cardiology · 2015Trial
- From "negative" trial to positive clinical impact: mitigating eligibility criteria-induced temporal selection bias in emulated clinical trials.npj health systems · 2026Article
- From 'Negative' Trial to Positive Clinical Impact: Emulating WARCEF While Accounting for Selection Bias in Trial Timing.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Direct oral anticoagulants across the heart failure spectrum: the precision medicine era.Heart failure reviews · 2022Review
- Ejection fraction, B-type natriuretic peptide and risk of stroke and acute myocardial infarction among patients with heart failure.Clinical cardiology · 2019Article
- Cardiac Sarcoidosis as an Uncommon Etiology for Posterior Circulation Stroke Presenting with Alexia without Agraphia.Case reports in neurological medicine · 2018Article
- Coagulation Abnormalities in Heart Failure: Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Implications.Current heart failure reports · 2016Review
- Article
- Stroke and anticoagulation in heart failure without atrial fibrillation: from risk to opportunity.Circulation · 2015Article
- Secondary stroke prevention: challenges and solutions.Vascular health and risk management · 2015Review
- Antithrombotics in heart failure.Croatian medical journal · 2014Review
- Personalized approach to primary and secondary prevention of ischemic stroke.The EPMA journal · 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
21 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin. METHODS AND
resultsWe used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcome. A secondary analysis added major hemorrhage to the outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was time to the first to occur of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death. Only age group was a significant treatment effect modifier (P for interaction, 0.003). Younger patients benefited from warfarin over aspirin on the primary outcome (4.81 versus 6.76 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.84; P=0.001). In older patients, therapies did not differ (9.91 versus 9.01 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.35; P=0.44). With major hemorrhage added, in younger patients the event rate remained lower for warfarin than aspirin (5.41 versus 7.25 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89; P=0.005), but in older patients it became significantly higher for warfarin (11.80 versus 9.35 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.53; P=0.03).
conclusionsIn patients <60 years, warfarin improved outcomes over aspirin with or without inclusion of major hemorrhage. In patients ≥60 years, there was no treatment difference, but the aspirin group had significantly better outcomes when major hemorrhage was included.
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.