ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2018
Comparison of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin regarding midterm adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation in adults with arrhythmias.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in Japanese patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2020Pooled it
- Bleeding disorders in implant dentistry: a narrative review and a treatment guide.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Review
- Comparison of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin regarding midterm adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral anticoagulants, including direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), are usually required in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who are at a high risk of thromboembolism (TE), even if they had undergone catheter ablation (CA). Although several studies have reported the safety and efficacy of DOACs around CA in AF patients, there are only limited data regarding the midterm incidence of TE and bleeding complications post-CA among AF patients treated with warfarin or DOACs.
methodsWe studied 629 AF patients (mean age: 65.3 ± 10.3 years; 442 men) undergoing CA, to calculate the midterm incidence of TE and bleeding complications associated with warfarin or DOACs.
resultsIn total, 292 patients used warfarin and 337 used DOACs (dabigatran: 90 patients; rivaroxaban: 137; and apixaban: 110). At baseline, the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were similar between the 2 groups. During a median follow-up period of 7 months, no TE complications occurred. The warfarin group had a significantly higher bleeding event rate than did the DOACs group (all bleeding complications: 32 [11.0%] vs 15 [4.5%], respectively,
conclusionsDirect oral anticoagulant use in AF patients undergoing CA may be associated with a similar risk of TE as warfarin but is associated with a lower risk of bleeding.
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.