↓ Skip to main content

Warfarin use and stroke, bleeding and mortality risk in patients with end stage renal disease and atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 2,788)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
39 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Warfarin use and stroke, bleeding and mortality risk in patients with end stage renal disease and atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Nephrology, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12882-016-0368-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jingwen Tan, Shuiqing Liu, Jodi B. Segal, G. Caleb Alexander, Mara McAdams-DeMarco

Abstract

Patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD), including stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD), hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), are at high risk for stroke-related morbidity, mortality and bleeding. The overall risk/benefit balance of warfarin treatment among patients with ESRD and AF remains unclear. We systematically reviewed the associations of warfarin use and stroke outcome, bleeding outcome or mortality in patients with ESRD and AF. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in Feb 2016 using key words related to ESRD, AF and warfarin in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library without language restriction. We searched for randomized trials and observational studies that compared the use of warfarin with no treatment, aspirin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and reported quantitative risk estimates on these outcomes. Paired reviewers screened articles, collected data and performed qualitative assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model with the DerSimonian - Laird estimator and the Knapp-Hartung methods as appropriate. We identified 2709 references and included 20 observational cohort studies that examined stroke outcome, bleeding outcome and mortality associated with warfarin use in 56,146 patients with ESRD and AF. The pooled estimates from meta-analysis for the stroke outcome suggested that warfarin use was not associated with all-cause stroke (HR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.74-1.16) or any stroke (HR = 1.01, 95 % CI 0.81-1.26), or ischemic stroke (HR = 0.80, 95 % CI 0.58-1.11) among patients with ESRD and AF. In contrast, warfarin use was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause bleeding (HR = 1.21, 95 % CI 1.01-1.44), but not associated with major bleeding (HR = 1.18, 95 % CI 0.82-1.69) or gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 1.19, 95 % CI 0.81-1.76) or any bleeding (HR = 1.21, 95 % CI 0.99-1.48). There was insufficient evidence to evaluate the association between warfarin use and mortality in this population (pooled risk estimate not calculated due to high heterogeneity). Results on DOACs were inconclusive due to limited relevant studies. Given the absence of efficacy and an increased bleeding risk, these findings call into question the use of warfarin for AF treatment among patients with ESRD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 13 8%
Other 41 24%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Psychology 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 43 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 25 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,057,279
of 25,715,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#49
of 2,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,405
of 324,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#2
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,715,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 324,810 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.