ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban, Dabigatran, and Rivaroxaban in Patients With Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Control Trials and Observational Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this network meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease. A comprehensive search was conducted across various electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, from inception to February 15, 2024. The search strategy utilized a combination of medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and relevant keywords related to valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation, anticoagulant therapy, and study design, such as randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The outcomes evaluated in this analysis comprised the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism (SE), as well as the occurrences of major bleeding events. A total of 10 studies were incorporated into this meta-analysis, encompassing 40,662 participants. Of these, 12,385 received apixaban, 2,829 received dabigatran, 13,662 received rivaroxaban, 2,582 received edoxaban, and 9,202 received warfarin. The duration of follow-up in the included studies ranged from 3 to 54 months. Among the four direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) studied, apixaban demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of stroke or SE when compared to other DOACs and warfarin, highlighting its efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease. Additionally, apixaban exhibited a lower risk of major bleeding events, further emphasizing its favorable safety profile compared to the other agents assessed. In conclusion, our findings suggest that apixaban may be more effective and safer than other DOACs and warfarin in this patient population. However, additional studies are warranted to compare the various DOACs in this cohort to identify the optimal treatment strategy for preventing adverse outcomes.
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.