ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
A comparative study of the clinical benefits of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high bleeding risk.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of direct oral anticoagulants on cardiac outcomes in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are approved to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, the clinical benefits of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in people with high bleeding risk are unclear. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on NVAF patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from May 31, 2016 to May 31, 2019. These patients had a high risk of bleeding and were taking at least one study medication. The aim of the study was to evaluate clinical benefits by comparing the efficacy and safety risks of these two medications. Results: A total of 1,301 patients with high bleeding risk were enrolled, including 787 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 514 patients in the dabigatran group. Results of the primary efficacy benefit endpoint were obtained from 104 patients (13.21%) in the rivaroxaban group and 81 (15.76%) patients in the dabigatran group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.860; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.637-1.162; Conclusions: In NVAF patients with high bleeding risk, there was no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in preventing stroke and systemic embolism. There was also no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in reducing fatal and critical organ bleeding. Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, identifier ChiCTR2100052454.
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.