ArticleCardiology journal2020
Randomized controlled clinical trials versus real-life atrial fibrillation patients treated with oral anticoagulants. Do we treat the same patients?
Article in Cardiology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02987062 (CRAFT - Multicenter Experience in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated With OAC), which is not on this 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.
CRAFT - Multicenter Experience in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated With OAC (CRAFT)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Non-Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical drug investigation · 2021Pooled it
- Administrative Data in Cardiovascular Research-A Comparison of Polish National Health Fund and CRAFT Registry Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Decoding the evidence: A synopsis of indications and evidence for catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to compare clinical characteristics of real-life atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with populations included in randomized clinical trials (ROCKET AF and RE-LY).
methodsThe analysis included 3528 patients who are participants of the ongoing, multicentre, retrospective CRAFT study. The study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02987062. The study is based on a retrospective analysis of hospital records of AF patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (acenocoumarol, warfarin) and non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (dabigatran, rivaroxaban). CHADS2 score was used for risk of stroke stratification.
resultsVKA was prescribed in 1973 (56.0%), while NOAC in 1549 (44.0%), including dabigatran - 504 (14.3%) and rivaroxaban - 1051 (29.8%), of the 3528 patients. VKA patients in the CRAFT study were at significantly lower risk of stroke (CHADS2 1.9 ± 1.3), compared with the VKA population from the RE-LY (2.1 ± 1.1) and the ROCKET-AF (3.5 ± 1.0). Patients in the CRAFT study treated with NOAC (CHADS2 for patients on dabigatran 150 mg - 1.3 ± 1.2 and on rivaroxaban - 2.2 ± 1.4) had lower risk than patients from the RE-LY (2.2 ± 1.2) and the ROCKET AF (3.5 ± 0.9).
conclusionsReal-world patients had a lower risk of stroke than patients included in the RE-LY and ROCKET AF trials.
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.