ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2024
Comparison between non-vitamin K oral antagonist versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation with and without valvular heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 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.
- The Brain-Atrial Fibrillation-Recent Rehabilitation Axis: A Modern Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) poses a significant stroke risk in heart disease patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in AF patients with and without any valvular heart disease (VHD/N-VHD).
methodsA systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to March 3, 2022. Efficacy and safety parameters were analyzed.
resultsA total of 85,423 subjects from 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. NOACs and VKAs showed similar effects on ischemic stroke in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.72-1.30; p = 0.83) and also on systemic embolic events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.83-1.25; p = 0.86). Similar effects were seen in VHD and N-VHD subgroups. Both treatments had similar effects on myocardial infarction in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.49-1.26; p = 0.32), VHD (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p = 0.07), and N-VHD subgroups (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.30-2.21; p = 0.69). NOACs reduced the risk of intracranial bleeding in AF VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.54-0.77; p < 0.0001), VHD (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.42-0.82; p = 0.002), and N-VHD subgroups (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.57-0.85; p = 0.0003). Additionally, NOACs reduced the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in AF VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.96; p = 0.02), specifically in the VHD subgroup (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54-0.89; p = 0.004). Moreover, NOACs were associated with a decreased risk for minor and non-fatal bleeding in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75-0.99; p = 0.04).
conclusionNOACs are effective and safe for ischemic stroke, systemic embolic events, myocardial infarction, intracranial bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD.
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.