Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Effectiveness and Safety of NOAC Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Aortic Stenosis.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation with mitral or aortic stenosis: A review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Assessment of Pharmacokinetics and Food Effect of AD-109, a Novel Formulation of Rivaroxaban 18 mg.Clinical and translational science · 2025Trial
- Initial experiences of surgical left atrial maze through resected left atrial appendage.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Aortic Stenosis and Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Thromboembolism and Major Bleeding in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and EHRA Type 2 Valvular Heart Disease: The Jordan Atrial Fibrillation (JoFib) Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2023Article
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valve Replacement or Repair.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Guideline recommendations on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with aortic stenosis are based on studies including a low number of patients with aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of NOAC versus warfarin on thromboembolism and major bleeding among AF patients with aortic stenosis. Methods and Results We emulated a target trial using observational data from Danish nationwide registries between 2013 and 2018. Thromboembolism was defined as a hospital diagnosis of ischemic stroke and/or systemic embolism, and major bleeding was defined as a hospital diagnosis of intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, or major or clinically relevant bleeding in other anatomic sites. Treatment effect estimates were based on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol approach. A total of 3726 patients with AF and aortic stenosis claimed a prescription for either a NOAC (2357 patients) or warfarin (1369 patients) and met the eligibility criteria for the trial. During 3 years of follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios for thromboembolism and major bleeding were 1.62 (95% CI, 1.08-2.45) and 0.73 (0.59-0.91) for NOAC compared with warfarin in the intention-to-treat analyses. Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analyses. Conclusions In this observational study, we observed a higher risk of thromboembolism but a lower risk of major bleeding for treatment with NOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and aortic stenosis. This observation needs confirmation in large randomized trials in these commonly encountered patients.
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.