ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy2021
Risk of fracture in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation initiating direct oral anticoagulants vs. vitamin K antagonists.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fracture risks in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with different oral anticoagulants: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Age and ageing · 2022Pooled it
- Association of Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin K Antagonists With Fractures in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Dabigatran Attenuates Osteoporosis by Balancing Osteoblastogenesis and Osteoclastogenesis by Targeting PRKAB1 and RELA.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Comparative risk of osteoporotic fractures with direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review.International journal of burns and trauma · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo determine the risk of fracture associated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), accounting for cumulative duration of use. METHODS AND
resultsUsing Quebec administrative healthcare databases, we formed a cohort of all patients aged 40 years or older newly diagnosed with NVAF, who filled a first prescription for DOACs or VKAs between 2011 and 2014. Exposure was modelled as a time-varying variable whereby patients were considered unexposed up to 180 days of cumulative duration of use (to account for a biologically meaningful exposure) and exposed thereafter. The final cohort included 10 306 new users of DOACs and 15 357 new users of VKAs. After propensity score-based fine stratification and weighting, use of DOACs for 180 days or greater was associated with a 35% decreased risk of fracture [crude incidence rates 7.5 vs. 15.3 per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.91] compared to VKA duration ≥180 days. Direct oral anticoagulants use was also associated with a lower risk of hip fracture (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.86) compared with VKAs. There was no difference in the rate of fracture for shorter duration of use (HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.79-1.53). The risk was not modified by age, sex, chronic kidney disease, osteoporosis, history of fracture or falls.
conclusionProlonged use of DOACs is associated with a lower risk of fracture compared with VKAs. These findings support the first-line recommendation for DOACs in patients with NVAF.
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.