SynthesisCardiovascular drugs and therapy2025
Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Compared with Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Type 2 Valvular Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2025. 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.
- Clinical Implication of Quantitative Flow Ratio to Predict Clinical Outcomes in De Novo Coronary Lesions After Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
- Review
- Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation With Valvular Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and type 2 valvular heart disease (VHD).
methodsWe searched the PubMed, LILACS, and MEDLINE databases to retrieve, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NOACs and VKAs in patients with AF and type 2 VHD, excluding mitral stenosis (moderate to severe, of rheumatic origin) or mechanical heart valves. The efficacy outcomes assessed were stroke and systemic embolism (SE), while safety outcomes included major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
resultsSeven RCTs, including 16,070 patients with AF and type 2 VHD, were included. NOACs reduced the risk of stroke/SE (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.89; P = 0.0005), with no significant difference in major bleeding (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). The risk of ICH was reduced with NOACs (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; P = 0.003). For patients with AF and bioprosthetic heart valve (five trials, 2805 patients), stroke/SE risks (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.44-0.96) with NOACs were superior to VKAs. Major bleeding risks without ENVISAGE TAVI AF trial (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.94; P = 0.03) with NOACs were superior to VKAs. The risks of ICH (RR, 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-1.09; P = 0.09) with NOACs were comparable to VKAs.
conclusionsNOACs demonstrate efficacy and safety in patients with AF and type 2 VHD and reduce the risk of stroke/SE and ICH when compared with those with VKAs.
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.