↓ Skip to main content

Antiplatelet versus anticoagulation treatment for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antiplatelet versus anticoagulation treatment for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003333.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduard Shantsila, Gregory YH Lip

Abstract

Morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure is high, and this predisposes them to thrombotic complications, including stroke and thromboembolism, which in turn contribute to high mortality. Oral anticoagulants (e.g. warfarin) and antiplatelet agents (e.g. aspirin) are the principle oral antithrombotic agents. Many heart failure patients with sinus rhythm take aspirin because coronary artery disease is the leading cause of heart failure. Oral anticoagulants have become a standard in the management of heart failure with atrial fibrillation. However, a question remains regarding the appropriateness of oral anticoagulants in heart failure with sinus rhythm. This update of a review previously published in 2012 aims to address this question. To assess the effects of oral anticoagulant therapy versus antiplatelet agents for all-cause mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular events and risk of major bleeding in adults with heart failure (either with reduced or preserved ejection fraction) who are in sinus rhythm. We updated the searches in September 2015 on CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE and Embase. We searched reference lists of papers and abstracts from cardiology meetings and contacted study authors for further information. We did not apply any language restrictions. Additionally, we searched two clinical trials registers: ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal apps.who.int/trialsearch/) (searched in July 2016). We included randomised controlled trials comparing antiplatelet therapy versus oral anticoagulation in adults with chronic heart failure in sinus rhythm. Treatment had to last at least one month. We compared orally administered antiplatelet agents (aspirin, ticlopidine, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, dipyridamole) versus anticoagulant agents (coumarins, warfarin, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed the risks and benefits of antithrombotic versus antiplatelet therapy using relative measures of effects, such as risk ratios (RR), accompanied with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The data extracted included data relating to the study design, patient characteristics, study eligibility, quality, and outcomes. We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of the evidence. This update identified one additional study for inclusion, adding data for 2305 participants. This addition more than doubled the overall number of patients eligible for the review. In total, we included four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 4187 eligible participants. All studies compared warfarin with aspirin. One RCT additionally compared warfarin with clopidogrel. All included RCTs studied patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.Analysis of all outcomes for warfarin versus aspirin was based on 3663 patients from four RCTs. All-cause mortality was similar for warfarin and aspirin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 4 studies; 3663 participants; moderate quality evidence). Oral anticoagulation was associated with a reduction in non-fatal cardiovascular events, which included non-fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, peripheral arterial embolism (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00; 4 studies; 3663 participants; moderate quality evidence). The rate of major bleeding events was twice as high in the warfarin groups (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.78; 4 studies; 3663 participants; moderate quality evidence). We generally considered the risk of bias of the included studies to be low.Analysis of warfarin versus clopidogrel was based on a single RCT (N = 1064). All-cause mortality was similar for warfarin and clopidogrel (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.21; 1 study; 1064 participants; low quality evidence). There were similar rates of non-fatal cardiovascular events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.45; 1 study; 1064 participants; low quality evidence). The rate of major bleeding events was 2.5 times higher in the warfarin group (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.91; 1 study; 1064 participants; low quality evidence). Risk of bias for this study can be summarised as low. There is evidence from RCTs to suggest that neither oral anticoagulation with warfarin or platelet inhibition with aspirin is better for mortality in systolic heart failure with sinus rhythm (high quality of the evidence for all-cause mortality and moderate quality of the evidence for non-fatal cardiovascular events and major bleeding events). Treatment with warfarin was associated with a 20% reduction in non-fatal cardiovascular events but a twofold higher risk of major bleeding complications (high quality of the evidence). We saw a similar pattern of results for the warfarin versus clopidogrel comparison (low quality of the evidence). At present, there are no data on the role of oral anticoagulation versus antiplatelet agents in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with sinus rhythm. Also, there were no data from RCTs on the utility of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants compared to antiplatelet agents in heart failure with sinus rhythm.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Slovenia 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Unspecified 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Researcher 9 11%
Other 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 45%
Unspecified 21 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,228,370
of 12,761,472 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,114
of 10,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,321
of 262,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,761,472 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.