Trial reportCerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland)2014
Recurrent stroke in the warfarin versus aspirin in reduced cardiac ejection fraction (WARCEF) trial.
Trial report in Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Apixaban and Recurrent Stroke Risk With Left Ventricular Dysfunction: A Secondary Analysis of the ARCADIA Trial.Stroke · 2025Trial
- Machine learning for stroke in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation: A post-hoc analysis of the WARCEF trial.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Trial
- Enhanced diagnostic workup increases pathological findings in patients with acute ischaemic stroke: results of the prospective HEBRAS study.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2024Observational
- Routine transthoracic echocardiography in ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack of undetermined cause: a prospective multicentre study.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Article
- Contemporary Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapies for Secondary Stroke Prevention: A Narrative Review of Current Literature and Guidelines.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
- Article
- Left Ventricular Non-Compaction Cardiomyopathy-Still More Questions than Answers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Advances in Recurrent Stroke Prevention: Focus on Antithrombotic Therapies.Circulation research · 2022Review
- Oral Anticoagulation and Adverse Outcomes after Ischemic Stroke in Heart Failure Patients without Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of cardiac failure · 2021Article
- Left Atrial Dilatation and Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Are Associated With Cardioembolic Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Real-World Korean Patients with Atrial-Fibrillation-Related Stroke and Severely Decreased Ejection Fraction.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2019Article
- Heart Failure and Stroke.Current heart failure reports · 2018Review
- Cardioembolic Stroke.Circulation research · 2017Review
- Potential new uses of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants to treat and prevent stroke.Neurology · 2015Review
- Secondary stroke prevention: challenges and solutions.Vascular health and risk management · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeWARCEF randomized 2,305 patients in sinus rhythm with ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 35% to warfarin (INR 2.0-3.5) or aspirin 325 mg. Warfarin reduced the incident ischemic stroke (IIS) hazard rate by 48% over aspirin in a secondary analysis. The IIS rate in heart failure (HF) is too low to warrant routine anticoagulation but epidemiologic studies show that prior stroke increases the stroke risk in HF. In this study, we explore IIS rates in WARCEF patients with and without baseline stroke to look for risk factors for IIS and determine if a subgroup with an IIS rate high enough to give a clinically relevant stroke risk reduction can be identified.
methodsWe compared potential stroke risk factors between patients with baseline stroke and those without using the exact conditional score test for Poisson variables. We looked for risk factors for IIS, by comparing IIS rates between different risk factors. For EF we tried cut-off points of 10, 15 and 20%. The cut-off point 15% was used as it was the highest EF that was associated with a significant increase in IIS rate. IIS and EF strata were balanced as to warfarin/aspirin assignment by the stratified randomized design. A multiple Poisson regression examined the simultaneous effects of all risk factors on IIS rate. IIS rates per hundred patient years (/100 PY) were calculated in patient groups with significant risk factors. Missing values were assigned the modal value.
resultsTwenty of 248 (8.1%) patients with baseline stroke and 64 of 2,048 (3.1%) without had IIS. IIS rate in patients with baseline stroke (2.37/100 PY) was greater than patients without (0.89/100 PY) (rate ratio 2.68, p < 0.001). Fourteen of 219 (6.4%) patients with ejection fraction (EF) <15% and 70 of 2,079 (3.4%) with EF ≥ 15% had IIS. In the multiple regression analysis stroke at baseline (p < 0.001) and EF <15% vs. ≥ 15% (p = 0.005) remained significant predictors of IIS. IIS rate was 2.04/100 PY in patients with EF <15% and 0.95/100 PY in patients with EF ≥ 15% (p = 0.009). IIS rate in patients with baseline stroke and reduced EF was 5.88/100 PY with EF <15% decreasing to 2.62/100 PY with EF <30%.
conclusionsIn a WARCEF exploratory analysis, prior stroke and EF <15% were risk factors for IIS. Further research is needed to determine if a clinically relevant stroke risk reduction is obtainable with warfarin in HF patients with prior stroke and reduced EF.
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.