ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2024
Safety and effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and stage 4 chronic kidney disease: a real-world experience.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Profile and Therapeutic Challenges in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Kidney Disease: Insights from the CRAFT Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Scoping review of apixaban and rivaroxaban dosing for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism in advanced chronic kidney disease.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Direct Oral anticoagulants in pulmonary thromboembolism therapy: the generalization-individualization dilemma and the path to risk stratification-a perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Poor clinical outcomes associated to multimorbidity, frailty and malnutrition in patients with atrial fibrillation.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2025Observational
- Anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease: clinical complexity beyond thromboembolism.Internal and emergency medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is still uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) perform better than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in subjects with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). The aim of the study was to compare safety and effectiveness of DOACs and VKAs in patients with NVAF and stage 4 CKD (creatinine clearance 15-29 mL/min). We searched the hospital databases of two academic centers to retrospectively identify patients with stage 4 CKD who were on treatment with DOACs or VKAs for NVAF. Safety was the primary outcome of the study and was assessed in terms of incidence of major bleeding (MB). Secondary outcomes were clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) and death for any cause. A total of 176 patients (102 on DOACs and 74 on VKAs) were found and included in the analysis. The incidence rate of MB was not statistically different between groups (8.6 per 100 patients-year in the DOAC group and 5.6 per 100 patients-year in the VKA group). Rates of IS/SSE and CRNMB were statistically similar in the two treatment groups, as well. There were less deaths for any cause in the DOAC group than in the VKA group (8.6 and 15.8 per 100 patients-year, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant. This study found no difference in terms of safety and effectiveness between patients with NVAF and stage 4 CKD treated with DOACs and VKAs. Larger prospective or randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.