Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23881846›Full record

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.

Shunichi Homma, John L P Thompson, Alexandra R Sanford, Douglas L Mann, Ralph L Sacco, Bruce Levin, Patrick M Pullicino, Ronald S Freudenberger, John R Teerlink, Susan Graham and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Secondary stroke prevention: challenges and solutions.Vascular health and risk management · 2015
    Review
  14. Antithrombotics in heart failure.Croatian medical journal · 2014
    Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shunichi Hommathe Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine.
John L P Thompson
Alexandra R Sanford
Douglas L Mann
Ralph L Sacco
Bruce Levin
Patrick M Pullicino
Ronald S Freudenberger
John R Teerlink
Susan Graham
J P Mohr
Barry M Massie
Arthur J Labovitz
Marco R Di Tullio
André P Gabriel
Gregory Y H Lip
Conrado J Estol
Dirk J Lok
Piotr Ponikowski
Stefan D Anker
WARCEF Investigators
Deventer Ziekenhuis · NLLehigh Valley Hospital · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR000439 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$50.0M
Warfarin vs. Aspirin in Reduced Ejection Fraction (WARCEF)U01NS043975 · NINDS · UNIV OF MED/DENT OF NJ-NJ MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI HOMMA, SHUNICHI · 2001 to 2010
$43.3M
Warfarin vs Aspirin in Reduced Ejection Fraction -STATU01NS039143 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI THOMPSON, JOHN L · 2001 to 2010
$21.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000439NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS039143NINDS NIH HHS U01-NS-039143NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS043975NINDS NIH HHS U01-NS-043975
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedAge FactorsAnticoagulantsAspirinBrain IschemiaCerebral HemorrhageDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHeart FailureHeart RateHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsAnticoagulantsAspirinWarfarinaspirinheart failuresinus rhythmstrokewarfarin

Identifiers

PMID23881846
PMCPMC4242511
OpenAlexW2119935488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.