ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparative clinical outcomes of acenocoumarol versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: real-world-evidence (SIESTA-A study).
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) and warfarin versus acenocoumarol in patients with atrial fibrillation under real-world clinical practice conditions. Methods: This was a retrospective, real-world data-based study. The data source was the Andalusian Population Health Database. The study covered the period from January 2012 to December 2020. Effectiveness outcomes were defined as the identification of a first occurrence of ischaemic or bleeding events, or all-cause mortality. The statistical analysis included crude incidence analysis, survival models: Kaplan-Meier curves, propensity score matched pairs analysis, Fine-Gray model, and Cox regression analysis adjusted for possible confounding. Results: A total of 150,949 patients were included. The mean age of the cohort was 74 years (48.2% female). The mean follow-up time was 3.3 years. The combined effectiveness endpoint of ischaemic events (transient ischaemic attack, systemic embolism, pulmonary embolism, or ischaemic stroke) showed the following results compared to acenocoumarol: warfarin (RR:1.06; 95%CI 0.93-1.22); dabigatran (RR:1.17; 95%CI 1.02-1.33); rivaroxaban (RR:1.15; 95%CI 1.05-1.26); apixaban (RR: 0.96; 95%CI 0.87-1.07) and edoxaban (RR: 1.10; 95%CI 0.79-1.51). Compared to acenocoumarol, the risk of all-cause mortality was lower for dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban (RR:0.77; 95%CI 0.72-0.82; RR:0.79; 95%CI 0.76-0.83; RR:0.85; 95%CI 0.81-0.89, respectively) and higher for warfarin (RR:1.12; 95%CI 1.05-1.20). An increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was observed with dabigatran (RR:1.36; 95%CI 1.09-1.70) and a lower risk with rivaroxaban (RR:0.84; 95%CI 0.72-0.98). All 4 DOACs showed a lower risk of intracranial bleeding compared to acenocoumarol. Warfarin carried a higher risk of both gastrointestinal bleeding (RR:1.64; 95%CI 1.31-2.06) and intracranial bleeding (RR:1.61; 95%CI 1.22-2.13) compared to acenocoumarol. An unadjusted analysis of matched groups in a multivariate Cox regression analysis yielded similar results for combined effectiveness and safety outcomes compared to acenocoumarol. Conclusion: Although DOACs were clearly associated with a lower risk of intracranial bleeding compared to acenocoumarol, our data did not reveal a significant reduction in thromboembolic events. Warfarin was found to be both less effective and less safe than acenocoumarol.
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.