ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with end-stage kidney disease and atrial fibrillation.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Uncertain benefit, certain harm: the anticoagulation paradox in hemodialysis-re-evaluation of stroke prevention and bleeding risk in end-stage kidney disease.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsPatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) require careful anticoagulation because thrombotic and bleeding risks are both elevated. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and no anticoagulation in Korean patients with ESKD and AF.
methodsIn this multicenter retrospective study, we included 933 patients with ESKD and nonvalvular AF treated between 2010 and 2023. Patients were assigned to three groups by initial treatment: no anticoagulation (n = 604), warfarin (n = 197), or DOACs (n = 132). The primary efficacy outcome was ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (IS/SE); the primary safety outcome was major bleeding (MB). Secondary outcomes were intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and all-cause mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for confounding.
resultsBoth warfarin (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55) and DOACs (aHR, 0.36) significantly reduced the risk of IS/SE compared with no anticoagulation. However, warfarin increased MB risk compared with no anticoagulation (aHR, 2.69), including ICH and GIB. DOACs also increased MB risk versus no anticoagulation (aHR, 1.37), driven primarily by ICH. Compared with warfarin, DOACs showed a lower MB risk (aHR, 0.51). Both warfarin and DOACs reduced all-cause mortality relative to no anticoagulation (aHR, 0.53 and 0.57, respectively).
conclusionAmong Korean patients with ESKD and AF, both warfarin and DOACs reduced IS/SE but increased MB. Given their lower MB risk than warfarin, DOACs may be preferable for anticoagulation in this high-risk population.
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.