SynthesisPloS one2017
Antithrombotic therapy strategies for atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in St-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Predictors and Impact on Therapy And Mortality.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2019Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JAMA cardiology · 2019Article
- Article
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
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet agents, vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify clinical trials comparing antiplatelet drugs with VKA and NOACs or their combination in AF patients undergoing PCI with a mean/median follow-up of at least 12 months. A network meta-analysis was conducted to directly and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of competitive antithrombotic regimens with a Bayesian random-effects model. Results were presented as relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsA total of 15 studies enrolling 13,104 patients were included. Among 5 regimens, rivaroxaban 15 mg daily plus P2Y12 inhibitor treatment demonstrated significant superiority over dual- and triple-antiplatelet therapies (DAPT, TT) in reducing thromboembolic events (0.64 [0.38, 0.95] and 0.68 [0.43, 0.98], respectively) but showed the maximum possibility of major bleeding risk, while VKA plus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) seemed the safest. Significantly less risk of major bleeding was seen in DAPT group than that in TT group (0.63 [0.39, 0.99]).
conclusionsThe present study suggests that combination of VKA and SAPT is the best choice for AF patients undergoing PCI considering both efficacy and safety. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus DAPT treatment owns the highest probability to be the optimal alternative to VKA plus SAPT for these patients.
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.