SynthesisOpen heart2026
Walking a tightrope: the safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients with prior intracranial haemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and prior intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) remains uncertain. Although direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated a more favourable safety profile than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the general AF population, comparative evidence in patients with previous ICH is limited.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DOACs and VKAs in patients with AF and prior ICH. PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to 16 March 2026. Outcomes of interest were ischaemic stroke, recurrent ICH and all-cause mortality. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) V.2. Pooled HRs with 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects models.
resultsFive observational studies were included. Compared with VKAs, DOACs were associated with a lower risk of recurrent ICH (5 studies, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.79), ischaemic stroke (4 studies, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94) and all-cause mortality (3 studies, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89). Heterogeneity was absent for ischaemic stroke and recurrent ICH (I²=0%) but substantial for mortality (I²=89%). The recurrent ICH finding remained robust across leave-one-out, Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman and overlap-adjusted sensitivity analyses, whereas the ischaemic stroke and mortality estimates lost statistical significance under more conservative methods.
conclusionDOACs appeared favourable over VKAs for recurrent ICH, ischaemic stroke and mortality, but certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should inform shared decision-making, not definitive practice change, pending randomised evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261333839.
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.