ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Optimal timing of anticoagulation after ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTiming for anticoagulation (AC) initiation in atrial fibrillation (AF) after ischemic stroke (IS) remains uncertain. Previous large studies mostly represented high-income countries, with limited representation of severe stroke and low rates of primary outcomes. We aimed to compare AC initiation at different timeframes in a broader and more diverse population.
methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinical Trials for trials and observational studies comparing early versus late AC initiation in AF after IS. The study groups were 0-4, 5-14, and ≥ 15 days. Primary endpoints were recurrent IS only and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Secondary endpoints included systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Sensitivity analysis focused on studies using direct oral anticoagulants and timing categories consistent with our classification.
resultsOur meta-analysis included 20 studies with 25,884 patients. Mean NIHSS was 6.14, with at least 3204 severe strokes. IS was similar between groups, but the 0-4 days strategy ranked first (P-score = 0.92). Sensitivity analysis showed reduced recurrent IS in the 0-4 days group versus the ≥ 15 days group (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.65; P < 0.01). ICH had no difference across all periods, 0-4 days versus 5-14 days (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.58-2.18; P = 0.14); ≥ 15 days versus 5-14 days (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.65; P = 0.75); and 0-4 days versus ≥ 15 days (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.49-1.55; P = 0.63). No differences were observed in all secondary outcomes.
conclusionInitiating AC 0-4 days after IS appears safe and may reduce the risk of recurrent stroke without increasing ICH, even in a more diverse population with higher-bleeding risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41524747What 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.