Trial reportEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2025
Effects of anticoagulation in patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation and multiple stroke risk factors: a win ratio analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial.
Trial report in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Anticoagulation Treatment for Subclinical Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation.JAMA network open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPatients with device-detected atrial fibrillation (DDAF) have a lower stroke risk than those with ECG-diagnosed AF, requiring careful evaluation of oral anticoagulation benefits vs. its inherent bleeding risk. METHODS AND
resultsAn unmatched win ratio analysis was performed of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial dataset, using components of the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of the trial. The primary analysis used this hierarchical order: (1) all-cause death, (2) stroke, (3) systemic or pulmonary embolism/myocardial infarction, and (4) major bleeding. Two additional analyses replaced all-cause death with cardiovascular death or included patient-reported outcomes. Win odds were calculated to account for undecided comparisons. Among 2534 patients 77 ± 7 years old, 947 (37%) women, median CHA2DS2-VA score 3 [interquartile range (IQR), 3-4], median follow-up 21 months (IQR, 10-38) 1 605 280 win ratio pairs were analyzed. The win ratio comparing edoxaban to no anticoagulation was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.68-1.10; P = 0.23). Most comparisons resulted in no clear winner (undecided pairs 84.9%). In the remaining comparisons, edoxaban won in 46% of the cases, placebo in 54%. Death and major bleeding were the most common events. The win odds was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-1.01; P = 0.23).
conclusionsThis hypothesis-generating win ratio analysis, integrating death, thrombotic events, and major bleeds with and without quality of life, did not find an advantage of anticoagulation with edoxaban over no anticoagulation in patients with DDAF. The most common events were death and major bleeding.
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.