ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Many Good Reasons to Switch from Vitamin K Antagonists to Non-Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between non-vitamin K oral antagonist versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation with and without valvular heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.Current oncology reports · 2023Review
- Article
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants as the First Choice of Anticoagulation for Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are the first choice for prophylaxis of cardioembolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who are anticoagulant-naïve, as well as the preferable anticoagulation strategy in those who are on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), but with a low time in therapeutic range (TTR). Nonetheless, there are many good reasons to consider switching from VKAs to NOACs also when TTR is >70%. From the pharmacological standpoint, anticoagulation with VKAs may remain erratic even in those patients who have high TTR values, owing to the mode of action of this drug class. Furthermore, experimental data suggest that, unlike VKAs, NOACs favorably modulate the effects of factor Xa and thrombin in the cardiovascular system through the protease-activated receptor family. Clinically, the most striking advantage provided by NOACs over VKAs, irrespective of the TTR, is the substantially lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage. NOACs have also been associated with less deterioration of renal function as compared with VKAs and may confer protection against cardiovascular events not strictly related to AF, especially the acute complications of peripheral artery disease. In this narrative review, we discuss the evidence according to which it is warranted to systematically substitute NOACs for VKAs for the prevention of AF-related stroke and systemic embolism.
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.