Trial reportClinical cardiology2017
Real-world incidence of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients on direct oral anticoagulants with left ventricular systolic dysfunction at a tertiary referral center.
Trial report in Clinical cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and incidence of stroke, white matter hyperintensities, and silent brain infarcts in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Real-world incidence of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients on direct oral anticoagulants with left ventricular systolic dysfunction at a tertiary referral center.Clinical cardiology · 2017Trial
- An Analysis of Perceived and Actual Anticoagulant Knowledge among Independent Pharmacy Patients.Innovations in pharmacy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with heart failure (HF) have increased risk for thromboembolic events. Real-world incidences of efficacy and safety outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are of growing clinical interest. HYPOTHESIS: Real-world efficacy and safety outcomes of DOACs in patients with LVSD will be similar to those of LVSD or HF subgroups in the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trials.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of adult patients with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) on DOAC therapy between 2010 and 2016. Incidences of safety and efficacy outcomes of anticoagulation with DOACs were extracted from primary and secondary hospital discharge diagnoses.
resultsDOACs were prescribed to 287 patients with LVSD over a mean follow-up of 313.3 ± 52.3 days. Many patients had moderate and severe chronic kidney disease (28.9% and 10.1%, respectively) and indications for anticoagulation therapy other than atrial fibrillation (19.9%). For efficacy outcomes, the calculated incidence rates of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism were 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-3.56) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.10-2.94) events per 100 person-years, respectively. For the safety outcomes, incidence rates of GI bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage were 2.4 (95% CI: 0.8-5.3) and 0.41 (95% CI: 0.1-2.2) events per 100 patient-years, respectively.
conclusionsOur findings are largely compatible with the results of LVSD or HF subgroups in RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trials and add to increasing confidence that DOACs can be safely used for stroke and systemic embolism prevention in patients with LVSD.
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.