ArticlePloS one2026
Contemporary patients with atrial fibrillation are not anticoagulated despite risks of stroke - Insights from GARDENIA.
Article in PloS one, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGARDENIA is a global, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study in high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, who were untreated with anticoagulants.
objectivesProvide contemporary evidence on reasons for non-treatment with an anticoagulant, and outcomes in high-risk AF patients.
methodsGARDENIA enrolled 704 AF patients with a CHA2DS2-VA score ≥2 and an elevated risk of bleeding (older age (≥70 years), reduced renal function, concomitant antiplatelet or NSAID use, or other conditions associated with increased bleeding risk), and had not been recently treated with an oral anticoagulant (OAC). Patients were followed for at least 4 months. The two-year risks of mortality, stroke and major bleeding with or without direct OACs (DOACs) in these patients was estimated using the GARFIELD risk score.
resultsHistory of major bleeding (18.7%), physician-assessed high-risk of bleeding (17.1%), and patient refusal (17.6%) were the top reasons for not initiating OACs. The 100-person-year event rates (95% CI) for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism (SE)/transient ischemic attack (TIA), and ISTH major bleeding were 13.22 (10.33, 16.92), 2.12 (1.14, 3.94), and 2.21 (1.13, 3.91), respectively. GARFIELD risk analysis indicated a 31% and 40% increase in the risk of mortality and stroke, respectively, and a ~ 30% decrease in risk of major bleeding, compared to the estimated risk, had the patients been anticoagulated. The study was prematurely terminated due to low rate of patient accrual.
conclusionsPerceived risk of bleeding was the leading cause for non-treatment with OACs in high-risk AF patients. Risk prediction modelling indicated that the benefits of anticoagulation in stroke and mortality reduction outweigh the risk of bleeding.
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.