ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2023
Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in older adults with atrial fibrillation: a prospective single-centre cohort study.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Definition of Polypharmacy in Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Flutter: A Scoping Review.Cardiology research · 2026Review
- Real-world outcomes of left atrial appendage closure in very elderly compared with younger patients.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Odoribacter splanchnicus rescues aging-related intestinal P-glycoprotein damage via GDP-L-fucose secretion.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Direct Oral anticoagulants in pulmonary thromboembolism therapy: the generalization-individualization dilemma and the path to risk stratification-a perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- COVID-19 and Antipsychotic Therapy: Unraveling the Thrombosis Risk.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are underused in the elderly, regardless the evidence in their favour in this population.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled anticoagulant-naïve patients aged ≥ 75 years who started treatment with DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) and stratified them in older adults (aged 75-84 years) and extremely older adults (≥ 85 years). Thrombotic and hemorrhagic events were evaluated for 12 months follow-up.
resultsWe enrolled 518 consecutive patients. They were mostly aged 75-84 years (299 patients; 57.7%) vs. ≥ 85 years (219 patients; 42.3%). Extremely older adults showed higher incidence of all the endpoints (systemic cardioembolism [HR 3.25 (95% CI 1.71-6.18)], major bleeding [HR 2.75 (95% CI 1.77-4.27)], and clinically relevant non-major bleeding [HR 2.13 (95% CI 1.17-3.92)]) vs. older adults during the first year after starting anticoagulation. In patients aged ≥ 85 years, no difference in the aforementioned endpoints was found between those receiving on-label vs. off-label DOACs. In the extremely older adults, chronic kidney disease, polypharmacy, use of antipsychotics, and DOAC discontinuation correlated with higher rates of thrombotic events, whereas a history of bleeding, Charlson Index ≥ 6, use of reduced DOAC dose, absence of a caregiver, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 were associated with major bleedings.
conclusionsNaïve patients aged ≥ 85 who started a DOAC for AF are at higher risk of thrombotic and bleeding events compared to those aged 75-84 years in the first year of therapy. History of bleeding, HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 and use of NSAIDs are associated with higher rates of major bleeding.
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.