ArticlePloS one2022
Oral anticoagulant treatment after bioprosthetic valvular intervention or valvuloplasty in patients with atrial fibrillation-A SWEDEHEART study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with a left-sided bioprosthetic heart valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Pooled it
- One-Year Risk of Bleeding in Patients on a Stable Warfarin Dose After Prosthetic Heart Valve Surgery.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Thromboembolic and bleeding events after valvular intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.Open heart · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo describe the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF), use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) and change in antithrombotic treatment patterns during follow-up after valve intervention with a biological prosthesis or valvuloplasty. METHODS AND
resultsAll patients with history of AF or new-onset AF discharged alive after valvular intervention (biological prosthesis or valvuloplasty) between 2010-2016 in Sweden were included (n = 7,362). Information about comorbidities was collected from national patient registers. Exposure to OAC was based on pharmacy dispensation data. In total 4,800 (65.2%) patients had a history of AF, and 2,562 (34.8%) patients developed new-onset AF, with 999 (39.0%) developing new-onset AF within 3 months after intervention. The proportion of patients with biological valve prosthesis was higher in patients with new-onset AF compared to history of AF (p<0.001). CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 was observed in 83.1% and 75.5% patients with history of AF and new-onset AF, respectively. Warfarin was more frequently dispensed than NOAC at discharge in patients with history of AF (43.9% vs 7.3%), and in patients with new-onset AF (36.6% vs 17.1%). Almost half of the AF population was not dispensed on any OAC at discharge (48.8% in patients with history of AF and 46.3% in patients with new-onset AF).
conclusionIn this real world study of patients with AF and recent valvular intervention, risk of new-onset AF after valvular intervention is high emphasizing need for frequent rhythm monitoring after intervention. A considerable undertreatment with OAC was observed despite being indicated for the majority of the patients. Warfarin was the OAC most frequently dispensed.
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.