Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32478848›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Association of Ischemic Stroke, Major Bleeding, and Other Adverse Events With Warfarin Use vs Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With a History of Intracranial Hemorrhage.

Chuan-Tsai Tsai, Jo-Nan Liao, Chern-En Chiang, Yenn-Jiang Lin, Shih-Lin Chang, Li-Wei Lo, Yu-Feng Hu, Ta-Chuan Tuan, Fa-Po Chung, Tze-Fan Chao and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. [Prognostic analysis of anticoagulation therapy in elderly patients with cardioembolic stroke].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Chuan-Tsai TsaiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jo-Nan LiaoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chern-En ChiangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yenn-Jiang LinDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Shih-Lin ChangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Li-Wei LoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yu-Feng HuDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ta-Chuan TuanDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Fa-Po ChungDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tze-Fan ChaoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Gregory Y H LipLiverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Shih-Ann ChenDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWTaipei Veterans General Hospital · TWUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Current guidelines recommend the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Data regarding warfarin sodium use compared with NOAC use in patients with AF with a history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are limited. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of warfarin use and NOAC use in patients with AF with a history of ICH using a nationwide cohort with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: A nationwide cohort study from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016, was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. The dates of analysis were July 1 to September 1, 2019. The study population comprised patients with AF with a history of ICH and a CHA2DS2-VASc score (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years [doubled], diabetes, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism [doubled], vascular disease [prior myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease], age 65-74 years, sex category [female]) of at least 1 for men or at least 2 for women who had received warfarin or NOACs. The clinical outcomes were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses among the study population before and after propensity score matching. Exposures: Oral anticoagulation with warfarin or NOACs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The clinical outcomes measured were all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, ICH, major bleeding, and adverse events. Results: The study cohort included 4540 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [10.5] years; 2653 men [58.4%]), with 1047 patients receiving warfarin (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [11.4] years; 571 men [54.5%]) and 3493 patients receiving NOACs (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [10.2] years; 2082 men [59.6%]). Compared with warfarin use, NOAC use was associated with statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.517; 95% CI, 0.457-0.585), ICH (aHR, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.389-0.796), and major bleeding (aHR, 0.645; 95% CI, 0.525-0.793), whereas the rate of ischemic stroke was similar in the 2 groups (aHR, 0.879; 95% CI, 0.678-1.141). These results were generally consistent after propensity score matching among 973 patients in each group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with AF with prior ICH, NOAC use was associated with lower rates of ICH and major bleeding compared with warfarin use, whereas the rate of ischemic stroke was similar in the 2 groups. Among patients with AF with prior ICH, NOACs could be the preferred choice for stroke prevention.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationBrain IschemiaCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesComorbidityFemaleHemorrhageHumansIntracranial HemorrhagesMaleRisk FactorsStrokeAnticoagulantsWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID32478848
PMCPMC7265096
OpenAlexW3029757349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.