ArticleThrombosis journal2022
Clinical outcomes in patients receiving edoxaban or phenprocoumon for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: a German real-world cohort study.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Phenprocoumon: Mortality, Thromboembolism and Major Hemorrhage. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Routine Data Studies.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026Pooled it
- Real-world evidence comparing oral anticoagulants for NVAF in Europe: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Future cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- DOAC plasma concentration upon hospital admission in a cohort of trauma patients. An observational real-life study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate and timely anticoagulant therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) is essential for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Comparative data regarding effectiveness and safety for edoxaban vs phenprocoumon, the predominant VKA in Germany, are scarce.
objectivesThe study evaluates effectiveness and safety of edoxaban vs phenprocoumon in NVAF patients in a German real-world setting.
methodsGerman statutory health insurance claims data of the Institute for Applied Health Research Berlin (InGef) Research Database from 2014 until 2019 were analyzed. In NVAF patients, new users of edoxaban and phenprocoumon were compared to assess effectiveness (stroke/systemic embolism (SE)) and safety (bleeding) during therapy. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated through multiple outcome-specific cox proportional hazard models adjusting for baseline characteristics. Outcomes of geriatric patients were analyzed in subgroup analyses.
resultsBetween 2015 and 2018, 7,975 and 13,319 NVAF patients newly initiated treatment with edoxaban or phenprocoumon. After adjusting for baseline confounders, the risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70-1.02) was numerically but not significantly lower, while the risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81) was significantly lower for edoxaban. In the geriatric subgroups, homogenous results compared to the main analysis were obtained.
conclusionThe results of this real-world analysis indicated better effectiveness and safety outcomes in patients with NVAF initiating edoxaban treatment compared to phenprocoumon. The findings confirm that the beneficial effects observed in the pivotal ENGAGE AF-TMI 48 trial can also be achieved in real-world use of edoxaban.
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.