Abstract 17301: Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The evidence for use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the management of post-operative cardiac surgery atrial fibrillation (POAF) is limited and mostly founded on clinical trials that excluded this patient population. Hypothesis: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the hypothesis that DOACs are safe compared to warfarin for the anticoagulation of patients with POAF. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library for clinical trials and observational studies comparing DOAC with warfarin in patients ≥18 years old who had post-cardiac surgery atrial fibrillation. Primary outcomes included stroke, systemic embolization, bleeding, and mortality, with secondary outcome of hospital readmission. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: We found 3 clinical trials, 1 prospective and 12 retrospective cohort studies eligible for inclusion with a total of 10,538 patients (3,207 DOAC patients and 7,331 warfarin patients). The meta-analysis for the primary outcomes showed significantly lower risk of stroke with DOAC use (6 studies, 7143 patients, RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81, I2: 0.0%) compared to warfarin, a trend towards lower risk of systemic embolization (4 studies, 7289 patients, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01, I2: 31.99%) and similar risks of bleeding (14 studies, 10182 patients, RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10, I2: 26.6%) and mortality (12 studies, 9843 patients, relative risk [RR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.37, I2: 26.5%) The secondary outcome of hospital readmission had similar risk between groups. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that DOACs, compared to warfarin, in the management of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery is associated with lower risk of stroke and a strong trend for lower risk of systemic embolization, and no evidence of increased risk for hospital readmission, bleeding or mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".