SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2015
Bleeding risks with novel oral anticoagulants during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-major bleeding risk of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of intermittent pneumatic compression on preventing deep vein thrombosis using microfluidic vein chip.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Review
- Network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of competitive oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2016Article
- Periprocedural antithrombotic therapy during various types of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComprehensive comparisons of safety (measured by bleeding risk) between multiple novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs and warfarin) in the peri-procedural period of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) are rare. METHODS AND
resultsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE LIBRARY were searched up to February 2015 by two reviewers independently. Predefined inclusion criteria identified 24 studies which were included in the analysis. Data were extracted by two researchers, and a network meta-analysis was conducted in R with R2WinBugS package, within Bayesian framework. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were summarized to evaluate the bleeding risks of three novel anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) in AF patients undergoing catheter ablation (CA). With respect to total bleeding risk, no significant difference was observed between dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) by mixed-treatment comparison. The similar results were seen in the direct comparison. While dabigatran was associated with a lower rate of minor bleeding in comparison to VKAs (OR = 0.67 with 95%CI 0.49-0.93).
conclusionsRisks of bleeding with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and VKAs were similar in peri-procedural period of CA for AF.
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.