ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation2019
Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Dabigatran and Factor Xa Inhibitors for Stroke Prevention in Hemophiliacs with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Debates Surrounding the Use of Antithrombotic Therapy in Hemophilic Patients with Cardiovascular Disease: Best Strategies to Minimize Severe Bleeding Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- How we manage cardiovascular disease in patients with hemophilia.Haematologica · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation, a progressively rising global health problem, is also rising in Hemophiliacs due to an increase in life expectancy in them. While treating Hemophiliacs with AF, deciding eligibility, choosing the anticoagulant based on risk-benefit ratio are tough decisions for physicians to make. This review paper aims to explore and compare existing studies, reviews and consensus papers to assess the safety of different Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACS) in this population.
methodsThorough literature search was conducted on Pubmed using Atrial Fibrillation, Hemophilia A, Oral anticoagulants, stroke prevention, Dabigatran, factor Xa inhibitors as keywords separately and in combinations. Papers in English language only from the past 5 years were selected for review. After removing duplicate results, 80 papers were selected and after applying different exclusion criteria and according to relevance, 40 papers were finalized for review.
resultsThe keywords AF, Stroke prevention, oral anticoagulants, Hemophilia a, Factor Xa inhibitors and Dabigatran gave 24899, 13619, 8964, 3503, 2850, 2799 results, respectively. Combination keywords also showed some papers and out of short-listed 80 relevant papers 35 were finalized. Reviewing and analyzing these papers revealed no clinical trials in hemophiliacs with AF in the past 5 years and 5 clinical trials comparing NOACs with Warfarin in general population. Rest were systematic reviews, consensus papers and meta-analyses on management in this group. A few compared these drugs for AF in the general population but not specifically in Hemophiliacs and others. consensus papers developed suggestions for management and showed that NOACs are superior to Warfarin but need individual evaluation in Hemophiliacs with AF.
conclusionsPatients with Hemophilia can also have thrombo-embolism despite their bleeding tendency and NOACs are a better option in them because of less need for monitoring, no food interactions and fewer drug interactions. This comparative review emphasized the need for more work to develop proper guidelines for thrombo-prophylaxis management in this specific group.
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.