Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,093

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Adjusted-dose warfarin versus low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin plus aspirin for high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation: Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation III randomised clinical trial

Open access
·1996·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03487-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adjusted-dose warfarin is highly efficacious for prevention of ischaemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, this treatment carries a risk of bleeding and the need for frequent medical monitoring. We sought an alternative that would be safer and easier to administer to patients with AF who are at high-risk of thromboembolism. METHODS: 1044 patients with AF and with at least one thromboembolic risk factor (congestive heart failure or left ventricular fractional shortening < or = 25%, previous thromboembolism, systolic blood pressure of more than 160 mm Hg at study enrollment, or being a woman aged over 75 years) were randomly assigned either a combination of low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin (international normalised ratio [INR] 1.2-1.5 for initial dose adjustment) and aspirin (325 mg/day) or adjusted-dose warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0). Drugs were given open-labelled. FINDINGS: The mean INR during follow-up of patients taking combination therapy (n = 521) was 1.3, compared with 2.4 for those taking adjusted-dose warfarin (n = 523). During follow-up, 54% of INRs in patients taking combination therapy were 1.2-1.5 and 34% were less than 1.2. The trial was stopped after a mean, follow-up of 1.1 years when the rate of ischaemic stroke and systemic embolism (primary events) in patients given combination therapy (7.9% per year) was significantly higher than in those given adjusted-dose warfarin (1.9% per year) at an interim analysis (p < 0.0001), an absolute reduction of 6.0% per year (95% Cl 3.4, 8.6) by adjusted-dose warfarin. The annual rates of disabling stroke (5.6% vs 1.7%, p = 0.0007) and of primary event or vascular death (11.8% vs 6.4%, p = 0.002), were also higher with combination therapy. The rates of major bleeding were similar in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Low-intensity, fixed-dose warfarin plus aspirin in this regimen is insufficient for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF at high-risk for thromboembolism; adjusted-dose warfarin (target INR 2.0-3.0) importantly reduces stroke for high-risk patients.

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/s0140-6736(96)03487-3

Cites

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

Metadata

Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-09
Volume
348
Issue
9028
Pages
633-638
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03487-3
OpenAlex
W44202489
Cited by
1,093
References
0
FWCI
45.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.