Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 383

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Peri-interventional management of novel oral anticoagulants in daily care: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry

Open access
Beyer-Westendorf, J., Gelbricht, V., Forster, K., Ebertz, F., Kohler, C., Werth, S., Kuhlisch, E., Stange, T., Thieme, C., Daschkow, K., Weiss, N.·2014·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: Patients receiving novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) frequently undergo interventional procedures. Short half-lives and rapid onset of action allow for short periods of NOAC interruption without heparin bridging. However, outcome data for this approach are lacking. We evaluated the peri-interventional NOAC management in unselected patients from daily care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Effectiveness and safety data were collected from an ongoing, prospective, non-interventional registry of >2100 NOAC patients. Outcome events were adjudicated using standard event definitions. Of 2179 registered patients, 595 (27.3%) underwent 863 procedures (15.6% minimal, 74.3% minor, and 10.1% major procedures). Until Day 30 ± 5 post-procedure, major cardiovascular events occurred in 1.0% of patients [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.5-2.0] and major bleeding complications in 1.2% (95% CI 0.6-2.1). Cardiovascular and major bleeding complications were highest after major procedures (4.6 and 8.0%, respectively). Heparin bridging did not reduce cardiovascular events, but led to significantly higher rates of major bleeding complications (2.7%; 95% CI 1.1-5.5) compared with no bridging (0.5%; 0.1-1.4; P = 0.010). Multivariate analysis demonstrated diabetes [odds ratio (OR) 13.2] and major procedures (OR 7.3) as independent risk factors for cardiovascular events. Major procedures (OR 16.8) were an independent risk factor for major bleeding complications. However, if major and non-major procedures were separately assessed, heparin bridging was not an independent risk factor for major bleeding. CONCLUSION: Continuation or short-term interruption of NOAC is safe strategies for most invasive procedures. Patients at cardiovascular risk undergoing major procedures may benefit from heparin bridging, but bleeding risks need to be considered.

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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/eht557

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 383

Metadata

Authors
Beyer-Westendorf, J., Gelbricht, V., Forster, K., Ebertz, F., Kohler, C., Werth, S., Kuhlisch, E., Stange, T., Thieme, C., Daschkow, K., & Weiss, N.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2014-01-06
Volume
35
Issue
28
Pages
1888-1896
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2134427191
Cited by
383
References
4
FWCI
32.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Peri-interventional management of novel oral anticoagulants in daily care: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/eht557
The paper
Beyer-Westendorf, J., Gelbricht, V., Forster, K., Ebertz, F., Kohler, C., Werth, S., Kuhlisch, E., Stange, T., Thieme, C., Daschkow, K., & Weiss, N. (2014). Peri-interventional management of novel oral anticoagulants in daily care: results from the prospective Dresden NOAC registry. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht557

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.