ReviewHeart failure reviews2020
Efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients with cancer-a network meta-analysis.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chinese Stroke Association guidelines for clinical management of ischaemic cerebrovascular diseases: executive summary and 2023 update.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2023Guideline
- Safety and efficacy of new oral anticoagulants compared to those of warfarin in AF patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Literature Review.Cardiology and therapy · 2025Review
- Crosslink between atrial fibrillation and cancer: a therapeutic conundrum.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2024Review
- Cancer-Associated Stroke: Thrombosis Mechanism, Diagnosis, Outcome, and Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of stroke · 2024Review
- Review
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Special Populations: Beyond the Clinical Trials.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Superiority of Direct Oral Anticoagulants over Vitamin K Antagonists in Oncological Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Analysis of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Active Cancer.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Dealing with oral anticoagulants in stroke patients: A narrative review based on current practice guidelines.Brain circulationReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are no guideline recommendations for the use of anticoagulant therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer, which creates uncertainty about the optimal antithrombotic treatment in these patients. We conducted a network meta-analysis for the first time to assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant drugs in patients with AF and concurrent cancer. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 2019. A search was made for the main anticoagulant drugs (warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban). Outputs were presented as odds ratios (ORs), their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) probabilities. We identified 414 relevant studies and included 5 trials involving 31,660 participants. In reducing the risk of stroke or systemic embolism, rivaroxaban and apixaban ranked the best and second best (SUCRA, 25.2% and 29.3%, respectively), followed by dabigatran, edoxaban, and warfarin. Apixaban and dabigatran were associated with lower probability of achieving at venous thromboembolism (VTE) (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05-0.52, SUCRA, 0.1%; and OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-1.00, SUCRA, 33.3%, respectively) than warfarin (SUCRA, 100.0%). For the prevention of all-cause death, apixaban was nonsignificantly less likely than warfarin. In addition, there were nonsignificant differences among all interventions in major bleeding, with the exception of apixaban vs. warfarin (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.79; SUCRA 4.9%). In AF patients with cancer, nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants showed a lower incidence of stroke/systemic embolism, VTE, all-cause death, and major bleeding than warfarin, with apixaban being the best of those studied.
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.