ReviewHerz2021
Anticoagulation in special patient populations with atrial fibrillation.
Review in Herz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) should be guided by considerations of the risk of thromboembolism, stroke, and bleeding as well as the patient's preference. Well-recognized scores have been developed to help the clinician in daily risk assessment, but there are several special patient populations for whom scores are not developed or validated. Furthermore, these patients were not adequately represented in the pivotal randomized trials for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). In patients with cancer, the intrinsic hypercoagulable state has to be balanced against an increased risk of bleeding, and a dynamic concept should be applied, taking into account the cancer type, current disease state, therapeutic strategy, and patient-related factors, with NOACs playing an increasingly larger role. In women with planned pregnancy or already pregnant, NOACs should be avoided. However, accidental exposure during pregnancy should not lead to recommendations for pregnancy termination in view of current observational data. Whether patients on dialysis with AF benefit from anticoagulation at all is questionable. But if the decision for anticoagulation is made, NOACs may contribute to a more favorable risk-benefit profile than vitamin- K antagonists. Finally, patients on the ward deserve special considerations regarding periprocedural management of anticoagulation. Although for the majority of procedures a short discontinuation of oral anticoagulation seems appropriate, there are some low-bleeding-risk procedures that do not require cessation. The aim of the present review is to discuss the major particularities of these four patient subgroups and thus to facilitate the clinical decision-making.
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.