What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: End-stage kidney disease with atrial fibrillation (n=933). Intervention: Warfarin vs. No anticoagulation. Primary outcome: Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (aHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31–1.00).

What question did this study set out to answer?

Investigate the paradox of anticoagulation benefits and harms in patients undergoing hemodialysis for stroke prevention and bleeding risk.

January 9, 2026The Korean Journal of Internal MedicineOpen Access

Warfarin significantly reduces the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism but increases the risk of major bleeding in hemodialysis patients.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Authors

TCTae-Wan Chung

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

This analysis uncovers the balance between stroke prevention and bleeding risks in end-stage renal disease, suggesting careful reevaluation.

Key Points

Investigate the paradox of anticoagulation benefits and harms in patients undergoing hemodialysis for stroke prevention and bleeding risk.
Review of existing literature on anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients
Comparison of stroke incidence and bleeding events
Assessment of anticoagulant efficacy and safety
Anticoagulation shows mixed benefits for stroke prevention in end-stage renal disease patients
Increased risk of bleeding events associated with anticoagulant use
Need for individualized patient assessment due to varying risks and benefits

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=933)

Multicenter

Yes

PICO

Population

End-stage kidney disease with atrial fibrillation (n=933)

Intervention / Comparator

Warfarin vs No anticoagulation

Primary Outcome

Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism — aHR 0.55 (0.31–1.00)

Main Result

Effect estimate: aHR 0.55 (95% CI 0.31–1.00)

Limitations

Study is observational, which may introduce selection bias.
Confounding factors such as frailty and nutritional status may affect outcomes.

Cite This Study

Tae-Wan Chung (2026) conducted an observational in End-stage kidney disease with atrial fibrillation (n=933). Warfarin vs. No anticoagulation was evaluated on Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (aHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31–1.00). Warfarin significantly reduces the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism but increases the risk of major bleeding in hemodialysis patients.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69613599766f0a95ea6adada https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2025.406

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

January 9, 2026The Korean Journal of Internal MedicineOpen Access

Warfarin significantly reduces the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism but increases the risk of major bleeding in hemodialysis patients.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Warfarin significantly reduces the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism but increases the risk of major bleeding in hemodialysis patients.

Authors

TCTae-Wan Chung

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

This analysis uncovers the balance between stroke prevention and bleeding risks in end-stage renal disease, suggesting careful reevaluation.

Key Points

Investigate the paradox of anticoagulation benefits and harms in patients undergoing hemodialysis for stroke prevention and bleeding risk.
Review of existing literature on anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients
Comparison of stroke incidence and bleeding events
Assessment of anticoagulant efficacy and safety
Anticoagulation shows mixed benefits for stroke prevention in end-stage renal disease patients
Increased risk of bleeding events associated with anticoagulant use
Need for individualized patient assessment due to varying risks and benefits

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=933)

Multicenter

Yes

PICO

Population

End-stage kidney disease with atrial fibrillation (n=933)

Intervention / Comparator

Warfarin vs No anticoagulation

Primary Outcome

Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism — aHR 0.55 (0.31–1.00)

Main Result

Effect estimate: aHR 0.55 (95% CI 0.31–1.00)

Limitations

Study is observational, which may introduce selection bias.
Confounding factors such as frailty and nutritional status may affect outcomes.

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/69613599766f0a95ea6adada https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2025.406

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark