ArticleCureus2024
Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Saudi Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) significantly heightens stroke risk, which can be mitigated through anticoagulation therapy. Although warfarin was traditionally employed for this purpose, the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is on the rise.
methodsThis retrospective study, which spanned from June 2016 to January 2018, focused on adult patients diagnosed with AF. Their treatments, either via warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran), were evaluated. Data analysis was done using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS, version 21; IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY). This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus warfarin in preventing thromboembolic complications among Saudi patients with AF.
resultsA total of 396 patients with AF, averaging 66 ± 14 years of age, were part of the study. Among them, there were slightly more female patients (205 or 51.8%). The majority of patients (223 or 56.3%) were treated with a DOAC, while the rest (173 or 43.7%) received warfarin. Furthermore, 93 patients (23.5%) were taking anti-platelet drugs. Statistically, the rate of ischemic stroke was significantly higher among patients treated with DOACs than with warfarin (p=0.005), but bleeding rates were similar in both groups. Specifically, the DOACs apixaban and rivaroxaban showed a significant association with the occurrence of stroke when compared to warfarin (p=0.012 and p=007, respectively).
conclusionOverall, both DOACs and warfarin presented similar results regarding hemorrhagic complications when treating AF patients. However, the DOACs apixaban and rivaroxaban displayed higher risks of ischemic stroke compared to warfarin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.