ArticleESC heart failure2020
Novel oral anticoagulant vs. warfarin in elderly atrial fibrillation patients with normal, mid-range, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recurrent Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Patient with Severe Coronary Artery Ectasia Followed Up for 10 Years: Implications of Anticoagulant Therapy.The American journal of case reports · 2024Article
- Analysis of long non-coding RNA RMRP in the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease receiving direct oral anticoagulants: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- Novel oral anticoagulant vs. warfarin in elderly atrial fibrillation patients with normal, mid-range, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPatients with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have poor prognosis. Outcomes of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) in elderly AF patients with normal, mid-range, and reduced LVEF were investigated. METHODS AND
resultsData were retrieved from Chang Gung Research Database during 2010-2017 for patients with AF. We excluded patients with venous thromboembolism within 6 months, total knee/hip replacement and heart valve replacement within 6 months, end-stage renal disease, stroke/systemic embolism (SE)/death within 7 days, age <65 years old, or no records of LVEF. Primary outcomes were ischaemic stroke (IS)/SE, major bleeding, and death from any cause. There was a total of 50 035 elderly AF patients retrieved. After exclusion criteria, 9615 patients with normal LVEF ≥ 50%, 737 with mid-range LVEF 41-49%, and 908 with reduced LVEF ≤ 40% were studied. At end of follow-up, patients on NOAC had significantly reduced IS/SE compared with warfarin in LVEF ≥ 50% [adjusted hazard ration (aHR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.89] and LVEF 41-49% (aHR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.88) after adjusting for covariates, while there was no difference in LVEF ≤ 40%. Patients on NOAC had significantly reduced major bleeding in all LVEF groups. In addition, patients on NOAC had significantly reduced death compared with warfarin in LVEF ≥ 50% (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.98).
conclusionsIn elderly AF patients ≥65 years, using NOAC was associated with lower IS/SE compared with warfarin in normal and mid-range LVEF but not in reduced LVEF. Using NOACs was associated with lower death compared with warfarin in normal LVEF.
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.