ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy2026
Implementation of novel antithrombotic treatment strategies and outcome improvements in patients with myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation over 20 years: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy, 2026. 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.
- Treatment effects in contemporary cardiovascular pharmacotherapy: determinants and interpretation.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 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
aimsPatients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and atrial fibrillation (AF) present challenges in antithrombotic treatment. Effects of newer treatment strategies on outcomes remain uncertain. We assessed implementation of antithrombotic treatment and occurrence of cardiovascular (CV) events and major bleeding in patients with MI and AF. METHODS AND
resultsNationwide data from SWEDEHEART and national health registries were used to identify 71 513 survivors of an acute MI with AF between 2000 and 2021. Changes in antithrombotic therapies over time in 2-year cohorts were analysed, and associations with 1-year outcomes were assessed. The outcomes were ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism, MI, major bleeding, CV mortality and all-cause mortality. Logistic regression was used to standardize for changes in patient characteristics and treatment over time. Oral anticoagulant use increased from 21% in 2000-2001 to 75% in 2020-2021, largely due to adoption of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) after the first DOAC approval in 2011, most often combined with a single antiplatelet. Over time, particularly in the last decade, 1-year risk of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism declined from 6.0% to 2.1%, and CV mortality decreased from 19.8% to 10.5%. Major bleeding increased from 3.9% to 7.6% in 2014-2015, then declined to 6.4% in 2020-2021, simultaneously with adoption of single rather than dual antiplatelet therapy in combination with DOAC.
conclusionBetween 2000 and 2021, among patients with MI and AF, we observed reductions in 1-year risks of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism and CV mortality, occurring during a period of increased prescription of oral anticoagulants, particularly DOACs. KEY QUESTION AND
findingsKey QuestionHave recent clinical trial findings on antithrombotic therapy in patients with myocardial infarction and concomitant atrial fibrillation been implemented, and have they resulted in any improvement in 1-year outcomes?Key FindingIn patients with myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation, we observed substantial reductions in 1-year risks of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism and cardiovascular mortality, associated with increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants, particularly DOACs.
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.