Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24683002›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Anticoagulation versus placebo for heart failure in sinus rhythm.

Gregory Y H Lip, Eduard Shantsila

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Anticoagulation versus placebo for heart failure in sinus rhythm.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Heart Failure and Stroke.Current heart failure reports · 2018
    Review
  7. Heart-brain Interactions in Heart Failure.Cardiac failure review · 2018
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Anticoagulation in Heart Failure: a Review.Journal of atrial fibrillation
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gregory Y H LipUniversity of Birmingham Centre for Cardiovascular Sciences, City Hospital, Dudley Road, Birmingham, UK, B18 7QH.
Eduard Shantsila
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with chronic heart failure (heart failure) are at risk of thromboembolic events, including stroke, pulmonary embolism and peripheral arterial embolism, whilst coronary ischaemic events also contribute to the progression of heart failure. Long-term oral anticoagulation is established in certain patient groups, including patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, but there is wide variation in the indications and use of oral anticoagulation in the broader heart failure population.

objectivesTo determine whether long-term oral anticoagulation reduces total deaths, cardiovascular deaths and major thromboembolic events in patients with heart failure. SEARCH

methodsWe updated the searches in June 2030 in the electronic databases CENTRAL (Issue 6, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to June week 1 2013) and EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to 2013 week 23). Reference lists of papers and abstracts from national and international cardiovascular meetings were studied to identify unpublished studies. Relevant authors were contacted to obtain further data. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral anticoagulants with placebo in adults with heart failure, and with treatment duration at least one month. Non-randomised studies were also included for assessing side effects. Inclusion decisions were made in duplicate and any disagreement between review authors was resolved by discussion or a third party. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy using relative measures of effects, such as odds ratio, accompanied by the 95% confidence intervals. MAIN

resultsTwo RCTs were identified. One compared warfarin, aspirin and no antithrombotic therapy and the second compared warfarin with placebo in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Three small prospective controlled studies of warfarin in heart failure were also identified, but they were over 50 years old with methods not considered reliable by modern standards. In both WASH 2004 and HELAS 2006, there were no significant differences in the incidence of myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and death between patients taking oral anticoagulation and those taking placebo. Four retrospective non-randomised cohort analyses and four observational studies of oral anticoagulation in heart failure included differing populations of heart failure patients and reported contradictory results. AUTHORS'

conclusionsBased on the two major randomised trials (HELAS 2006; WASH 2004), there is no convincing evidence that oral anticoagulant therapy modifies mortality or vascular events in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm. Although oral anticoagulation is indicated in certain groups of patients with heart failure (for example those with atrial fibrillation), the available data does not support the routine use of anticoagulation in heart failure patients who remain in sinus rhythm.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnticoagulantsAspirinCardiomyopathy, DilatedChronic DiseaseHeart FailureHeart RateHumansPlacebo EffectRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicThromboembolismWarfarinAnticoagulantsAspirinWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID24683002
PMCPMC6599834
OpenAlexW2169053026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.