ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Mechanical Heart Valves: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Warfarin-Durian interaction: A case study bridging clinical outcomes and metabolic profiling through metabolomics.Toxicology reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Treatment Stability of Warfarin and Acenocoumarol in Patients With Mechanical Heart Valves and Atrial Fibrillation: A One-Year Cohort Study.Acta medica academica · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with mechanical heart valves require lifelong anticoagulation primarily due to the thrombogenic nature of these valves. Warfarin has been the mainstay of therapy, but its drug-drug interactions and frequent monitoring requirements have diverted attention toward DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants) such as apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. However, the use of DOACs in this group of patients remains controversial, particularly after negative outcomes in earlier trials. This systematic review focuses on the efficacy of DOACs compared to warfarin for preventing thromboembolic events and associated bleeding risks in patients with mechanical heart valves. Most evidence comes from observational studies and meta-analyses. More limited data exist for patients with mechanical heart valves. We systematically searched PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published between January 2015 and May 5, 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses comparing DOACs and warfarin in adults with mechanical heart valves and related comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease. Articles were screened and assessed using standard quality appraisal tools. We included three observational studies, two RCTs, and six systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Most of the studies favored warfarin as the standard therapy for patients with mechanical heart valves, while DOACs showed relatively inferior outcomes. Current practice guidelines from the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force suggest warfarin as the standard treatment for patients with mechanical heart valves. There is a further need for long-term, high-quality clinical trials using a newer generation of DOACs among this high-risk group.
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.