ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Efficacy and Safety of Drug and Device Strategies for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Whether anticoagulation can be resumed in atrial fibrillation (AF) combined with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and which anticoagulation modality is used with better efficacy and safety, is unknown. (2) Method: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on relevant topics were included by searching five databases: PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial and ClinicalTrials. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to analyze the effect of oral anticoagulant (OAC), new oral anticoagulant (NOAC), warfarin, antiplatelet, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and no therapy in patients with AF after intracranial hemorrhage. (3) Results: We included 16 studies involving 25,483 patients. Compared with no antithrombotic therapy, the risk of thromboembolism and all-cause mortality were both reduced with OAC (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.67; OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.25-0.8) and LAAO (OR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-0.76; OR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-0.88), and there was no increased risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage. Regarding thromboembolism, OAC (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.69) was superior to antiplatelet therapy, and antiplatelet therapy (OR: 12.59, 95% CI: 1.57-133.50) was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism than LAAO. There were no significant differences in recurrent intracranial hemorrhage between the interventions. LAAO appeared to be the best option for reducing thromboembolism (SUCRA: 0.96), recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (SUCRA: 0.75) and all-cause mortality (SUCRA: 0.94). (4) Conclusions: Based on this network meta-analysis, we hypothesize that LAAO has the highest likelihood of reducing the risk of thromboembolism and recurrent intracranial hemorrhage, as well as all-cause mortality in patients with AF after intracranial hemorrhage, followed by OAC.
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.