Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Moderate to Severe Mitral Stenosis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis (MS) and atrial fibrillation (AF) is not recommended. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOAC usage compared to vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in patients with moderate to severe MS and AF. We conducted a systematic review to identify articles that compared warfarin to NOAC in patients with moderate to severe MS and AF. Only four studies (two observational studies and two trials) met our search criteria and reported a total of 7529 patients with MS and AF with MS and AF, 4138 of them treated with NOAC. In both observational studies, the severity of MS was not determined, and there was heterogeneity in MS etiology. Nevertheless, both studies showed a positive signal toward the efficacy and safety of NOAC compared to VKA in this population. A randomized pilot trial (n=40) was done on patients with moderate to severe MS, and it showed further acceptable efficacy and safety for rivaroxaban use. However, a larger randomized controlled trial (n=4531) disclosed that VKA (warfarin) led to a significantly lower rate of a composite of cardiovascular events or mortality than rivaroxaban, without a higher rate of major bleeding but not fatal bleeding. Our systematic review provides exploratory information on NOAC safety and effectiveness in patients with MS; it also discourages using NOACs for patients with moderate to severe MS and supports the current treatment guidelines. However, more dedicated clinical trials evaluating the use of NOACs in moderate to severe MS are underway. They will categorically establish the safety profile and clinical effectiveness of NOAC in this high-risk population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".