ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Anticoagulation Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation in CKD Stage G5 and Dialysis Patients: An Updated Scoping Review.
Review 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anticoagulation approaches in hemodialysis: a systematic review of efficacy, safety, and literature gap.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Scoping review of apixaban and rivaroxaban dosing for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism in advanced chronic kidney disease.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Review
- Umbrella review of anticoagulation strategies for secondary prevention of cardioembolic stroke in atrial fibrillation: efficacy, safety, and knowledge gaps.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Acute pyelonephritis complicated by subcapsular and perinephric hematoma: Diagnostic role of CT scan and 6-month follow-up.Radiology case reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) often exclude patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), creating uncertainty regarding their safety and efficacy compared with warfarin. This study addresses this gap by providing key insights into anticoagulation in this high-risk population. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of DOACs compared to warfarin and no anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with CKD stage G5 or on dialysis. This scoping review followed a six-stage framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An exhaustive search of four databases identified relevant papers published through August 2024. The data extraction process was conducted independently, with subsequent qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted. Among the 33 studies included in the final analysis, DOACs, particularly apixaban, were associated with a 20-30% decreased major bleeding risk compared to warfarin. Stroke incidence was comparable between DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), with apixaban showing improved prevention in severe CKD. Observational studies reported slightly lower mortality rates with DOACs, particularly apixaban, including fewer cardiovascular-related deaths than with VKAs. DOACs, particularly apixaban and rivaroxaban, demonstrate a favorable safety profile compared to warfarin, but show inconsistent evidence in balancing thromboembolic prevention and bleeding risks in patients with AF and CKD stage G5 or on dialysis. Future studies should focus on optimizing dosing strategies and evaluating long-term safety and efficacy.
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.