SynthesisCardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions2019
Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants in patients requiring catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal Anticoagulant Strategy for Periprocedural Management of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal oral anticoagulant agent during catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) remained unclear. HYPOTHESIS: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are safer and effective compared to uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists (U-VKA) among patients requiring CA for AF.
methodsFour randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies (OS) were selected using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and the CENTRAL data bases (Inception-December-2017). Estimates were reported as random effects risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding and main efficacy endpoint was thromboembolism.
resultsIn RCTs restricted analysis, NOACs significantly reduced the relative risk of major bleeding by 72% compared to U-VKA (RR, 0.28, 95% CI, 0.14-0.58, P < 0.001). This significant effect was not achieved in OS based analysis (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.42-1.78, P = 0.68). In terms of thromboembolism, both anticoagulation strategies were equally effective in analysis of RCTs (RR, 0.28, 95% CI, 0.05-1.70, P = 0.17) or OS (RR, 1.43, 95% CI, 0.46-4.39, P = 0.54). In sensitivity analysis, there was no difference among uninterrupted NOACs (U-NOACs) and U-VKA in terms of major bleeding [(RCTs: RR, 0.33, 95% CI, 0.10-1.06, P = 0.06); (OS: RR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.28-1.78, P = 0.46)] or thromboembolism [(RCTs: RR, 0.25, 95% CI, 0.03-2.29, P = 0.22); (OS: RR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.08-5.53, P = 0.72)].
conclusionNOACs, either interrupted or un-interrupted, are safer and equally effective drugs compared to U-VKA in AF patients requiring CA.
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.