SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin K Antagonists for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Amyloidosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association of periodontal disease with risk atrial fibrillation: systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Atrial fibrillation in transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy: marker of disease severity and implications for multidomain reassessment.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Atrial Fibrillation in Infiltrative Cardiomyopathies: From Atrial Cardiomyopathy Imaging to Targeted Management-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Cardiac Amyloidosis in the Real World: Clinical Presentations, Disease Overlap, and Therapeutic Imperatives.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to systematically review and synthesize evidence comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted through January 2024 to identify studies comparing DOACs and VKAs in AF patients with CA. Eligible studies underwent rigorous screening and data extraction to evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes. Results: Four studies met the criteria. The first study reported similar embolic event rates between DOACs (3.9%) and VKAs (2.9%) per 100 patient years, while major bleeding rates were 5.21% and 3.74%, respectively. The second paper found stroke rates of 2% for DOACs and 4% for VKAs, with bleeding complications observed in 10% of DOAC patients compared to 20% in VKA patients. The third cohort demonstrated that DOACs were associated with significantly lower risks of stroke and major bleeding compared to VKAs. The last study reported embolic event rates of 1.6 and 2.0 per 100 patient years for DOACs and VKAs, respectively. In the pooled analysis, DOACs were associated with a reduced risk of thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.84), and no difference in major bleeding between the two groups (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.25-1.51). Conclusions: Existing studies support the use of DOACs as a non-inferior therapeutic option compared to VKAs for preventing thromboembolism in patients with AF and cardiac amyloidosis. DOACs may also offer practical advantages, including reduced bleeding risks and ease of management, but further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and guide clinical practice.
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.