ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Low-dose rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Asian patients after surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement: a propensity score-matched and inverse probability-weighted real-world study.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence for rivaroxaban during the early postoperative period after surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement remains limited, particularly in Asian patients receiving low-dose rivaroxaban. We compared the effectiveness and safety of low-dose rivaroxaban versus dose-adjusted warfarin within the initial 3 months after surgery. In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we included consecutive adults who underwent surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement between August 2021 and December 2023 and received postoperative oral anticoagulation with low-dose rivaroxaban (15 or 10 mg once daily) or warfarin. Propensity score matching was used as the primary analysis, and inverse probability of treatment weighting was performed as a sensitivity analysis. The primary effectiveness outcome was thromboembolic events; the primary safety outcome was clinically relevant bleeding. Time-to-event outcomes were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models, and absolute risk differences were reported descriptively. A total of 367 patients were included (178 rivaroxaban, 189 warfarin). After 1:1 PSM, 125 pairs were analyzed. During the 3-month follow-up, thromboembolic events occurred in 1/125 patients (0.8%) in each group, with an absolute risk difference of 0.0% points. Clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 7/125 patients (5.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and 11/125 patients (8.8%) in the warfarin group, with an absolute risk difference of -3.2% points. The composite outcome occurred in 8/125 (6.4%) and 12/125 (9.6%) patients, respectively, with an absolute risk difference of -3.2% points. The confidence interval for thromboembolic events was very wide, indicating substantial imprecision. Sensitivity analysis using IPTW yielded directionally consistent results. During the first 90 days after surgical bioprosthetic valve replacement, no statistically significant differences in thromboembolic or clinically relevant bleeding outcomes were detected between low-dose rivaroxaban and warfarin. However, thromboembolic events were very rare and the effectiveness analysis was substantially underpowered. These findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating, and larger prospective studies are needed to provide more precise estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42693321What 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.