Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Warfarin/Aspirin study in heart failure (WASH): a randomized trial comparing antithrombotic strategies for patients with heart failure

Cleland, J.G.F, Findlay, I, Jafri, S, Sutton, G, Falk, R, Bulpitt, C, Prentice, C, Ford, I, Trainer, Adele, Poole-Wilson, P.A·2004·American Heart Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND Heart failure is commonly associated with vascular disease and a high rate of athero-thrombotic events, but the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy are unknown. METHODS The current study was an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing no antithrombotic therapy, aspirin (300 mg/day), and warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.5) in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring diuretic therapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate the feasibility and inform the design of a larger outcome study. The primary clinical outcome was death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS Two hundred seventy-nine patients were randomized and 627 patient-years exposure were accumulated over a mean follow-up time of 27 +/- 1 months. Twenty-six (26%), 29 (32%), and 23 (26%) patients randomized to no antithrombotic treatment, aspirin, and warfarin, respectively, reached the primary outcome (ns). There were trends to a worse outcome among those randomized to aspirin for a number of secondary outcomes. Significantly (P =.044) more patients randomized to aspirin were hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, especially worsening heart failure. CONCLUSIONS The Warfarin/Aspirin Study in Heart failure (WASH) provides no evidence that aspirin is effective or safe in patients with heart failure. The benefits of warfarin for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm have not been established. Antithrombotic therapy in patients with heart failure is not evidence based but commonly contributes to polypharmacy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.010

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 407

Metadata

Authors
Cleland, J. G. F., Findlay, I., Jafri, S., Sutton, G., Falk, R., Bulpitt, C., Prentice, C., Ford, I., Trainer, A., & Poole-Wilson, P. A.
Venue
American Heart Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
148
Issue
1
Pages
157-164
ISSN
0002-8703 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120865130
Cited by
407
References
2
FWCI
13.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.