ArticleThrombosis journal2022
Efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with stable coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.
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.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Coexisting Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Within the Last Year.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Atrial fibrillation episode status and incidence of coronary slow flow: A propensity score-matched analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in real-world elderly patients with comorbidities of stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsElderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years old) diagnosed with SCAD and AF were consecutively recruited and grouped into patients with or without oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. Follow-up was performed for 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and systemic embolism. Major bleeding outcomes were defined as events that were type ≥ 3 based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. The net clinical outcomes were defined as the combination of MACEs and bleeding of BARC type ≥ 3.
resultsA cohort of 832 eligible patients (78 ± 6.70 years) was included. Compared to the patients without OAC treatment (n = 531, 63.82%), the patients treated with OAC (n = 301, 36.18%) were much younger, had higher body mass index (BMI), and had lower prevalence of heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal insufficiency, and previous myocardial infarction. During the follow-up of 5 years, compared to the patients without OAC treatment, patients with OAC had a significantly lower risk of MACEs (20.60% vs. 58.95%, adjusted HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.15-0.30, p < 0.001) but a higher risk of BARC ≥ 3 bleeding events (4.65% vs. 1.32%, adjusted HR: 4.71, 95% CI: 1.75-12.64, p = 0.002). In combination, a lower risk of net clinical outcomes could be observed in the patients with OACs (23.26% vs. 58.96%, adjusted HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.19-0.38, p < 0.001). Among the patients with OAC treatment, no significant difference was found for MACEs or BARC ≥ 3 bleeding events between the patients with or without comedications of oral antiplatelet agents.
conclusionsA net clinical benefit of efficacy and safety could be observed in OAC-treated elderly patients with SCAD and AF. This benefit is independent of the comedications of oral antiplatelet treatment.
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.