Trial reportStroke2026
Early Versus Delayed Anticoagulation in Acute Ischemic Stroke According to Atrial Fibrillation Subtype and Time of Diagnosis: Subgroup Analysis of the OPTIMAS Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Stroke, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03759938 (OPtimal TIMing of Anticoagulation After Acute Ischaemic Stroke), which is not on this 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.
OPtimal TIMing of Anticoagulation After Acute Ischaemic Stroke: a Randomised Controlled Trial
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
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter acute ischemic stroke, it is uncertain whether the time of atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnosis (before or after stroke) or AF subtype (paroxysmal or permanent) modifies the treatment effect of early versus delayed direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) initiation.
methodsOPTIMAS (Optimal Timing of Anticoagulation After Acute Ischemic Stroke) was a randomized, parallel-group, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment. Participants with acute ischemic stroke and AF were randomized 1:1 to early (within 4 days) or delayed (day 7-14) DOAC initiation. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and systemic arterial embolism. In this trial subgroup analysis, the prespecified subgroup of interest was time of AF diagnosis, classified as before or after the qualifying stroke. We also investigated AF subtype classified as persistent or paroxysmal. We fitted mixed effects logistic regression models with interaction terms between each subgroup and treatment allocation. We also investigated associations between AF time of diagnosis or subtype and outcomes using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsWe included 3619 participants (mean age 78.0±9.9 years; 45.3% women). For AF diagnosed before stroke, 37 of 918 (4.0%) participants allocated to early DOAC had a primary outcome event versus 32 of 920 (3.5%) allocated to delayed DOAC, odds ratio, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.72-1.89), while for AF diagnosed after stroke the respective primary outcome rates were 22 of 895 (2.5%) and 27 of 886 (3.0%; odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.45-1.40],
conclusionsWe found no evidence that AF time of diagnosis or subtype modify the effects of early DOAC treatment. Persistent AF was independently associated with approximately double the risk of the primary outcome compared with paroxysmal AF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03759938.
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.