ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2014
The value of inhibitors of factor Xa for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of factor Xa inhibitors advocated the initiation of clinical trials that addressed the value of anticoagulation in patients with hemodynamically stable primary pulmonary embolism (PE). In the Matisse trial in patients with PE, fondaparinux administered at therapeutic doses followed by vitamin K antagonists (VKA) has shown a comparable efficacy and safety profile to that seen with intravenous adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin/VKA. A long-acting derivative of fondaparinux, idraparinux, failed to achieve similar results. On the other hand, the Cassiopea study revealed that once weekly injections of idrabiotaparinux, a slightly modified form of idraparinux, have similar efficacy and better safety profile compared to VKAs in the long-term treatment of patients with PE. However, the inconvenient parenteral administration of both fondaparinux and idrabiotaparinux limits their routine clinical use. The availability of antithrombotic compounds that can be administered orally in fixed dose, owing to their predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and have a lower potential for drug and food interactions has opened new horizons for the treatment of patients with PE. The Einstein PE, Amplify and Hokusai studies, conducted with rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban, respectively, showed that for the treatment of PE they possess a more favorable benefit-to-risk profile than the conventional antithrombotic drugs. In addition, rivaroxaban and apixaban make it possible to treat uncomplicated PE patients from the beginning, without the need for the parenteral administration of heparins or fondaparinux, and edoxaban allows the treatment of fragile patients with lower doses. All of them cover a wide spectrum of clinical presentations, including PE patients at intermediate risk.
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.