-
1.
Left Ventricular Thrombus Therapy With Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Saleiro, C, Lopes, J, De Campos, D, Puga, L, Costa, M, Gonçalves, L, Teixeira, R
Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. 2021;(3):233-243
Abstract
BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for left ventricular thrombus (LVT) resolution. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly evaluated as alternatives to the standard of care in anticoagulation. METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the use of DOACs vs VKAs for LVT treatment. The occurrence of LVT resolution, systemic embolism (SE) or stroke, and bleeding events were compared during follow-up using random-effects analysis. RESULTS The 5 included studies were all observational (a total of 828 patients). Of these, 284 patients (34%) were treated with DOACs, and 544 (66%) treated with VKAs. Thrombus resolution was similar for both methods (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.47-1.75; I2 = 63%; P = .78). The incidence of SE or stroke was also similar (pooled OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.85-2.97; I2 = 0%; P = .14). Clinically relevant bleeding incidence was similar for both groups (pooled OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.31-1.40; I2 = 0%; P = .28), although all bleeding events were less frequent in the DOAC group (pooled OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.90; I2 = 0%; P = .02). CONCLUSION Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests DOACs were as effective as VKAs for LVT resolution, with a similar risk of systemic embolism/stroke and clinically relevant bleeding. These results, obtained from observational studies, are not definitive and hence randomized controlled trials are needed. Nevertheless, our analysis identifies key experimental features required in future studies.
-
2.
The Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in the Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombi: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Al-Abcha, A, Herzallah, K, Saleh, Y, Mujer, M, Abdelkarim, O, Abdelnabi, M, Almaghraby, A, Abela, GS
American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions. 2021;(4):435-441
Abstract
BACKGROUND Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have a well-established role in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism and in the reduction of thromboembolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, limited evidence supports their role in patients with left ventricular thrombi. METHODS The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles published from inception to 1 August 2020. We included studies evaluating the effect of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with left ventricular thrombi. The primary outcome was thrombus resolution, and the secondary outcomes were major bleeding and stroke or systemic embolization (SSE). RESULTS Five retrospective observational studies were included, with a total of 857 patients. VKAs and DOACs had a similar rate of thrombus resolution (odds ratio [OR] 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.65; p = 0.90). Our analysis also demonstrated a similar rate of major bleeding (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.27-1.44; p = 0.27) and SSE (OR 1.86; 95% CI 0.99-3.50; p = 0.05) between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION In patients with left ventricular thrombi, DOACs and VKAs are associated with similar rates of thrombus resolution, major bleeding, and SSE.
-
3.
Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Retrospective, Multicenter Study and Meta-Analysis of Existing Data.
Cochran, JM, Jia, X, Kaczmarek, J, Staggers, KA, Rifai, MA, Hamzeh, IR, Birnbaum, Y
Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. 2021;(2):173-178
Abstract
AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) relative to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for the treatment of left ventricular thrombus (LVT). METHODS This retrospective study enrolled patients diagnosed with LVT from 2014-2017. Patient characteristics and outcomes within 12 months of LVT diagnosis were recorded and analyzed. A meta-analysis was also performed by pooling our results with existing data in literature. RESULTS 14 DOAC and 59 VKA patients were included. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar except for age. Although more strokes within 12 months occurred in VKA (15%) than in DOAC (0%) patients, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.189). There were no significant differences in outcomes between patients on DOAC and VKA for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (7%, vs 3.4%, P = .477), LVT resolution (86% vs 76%, P = .499) or bleeding (14% vs 14%, P = 1) within 12 months. The meta-analysis included 6 studies (n = 408 for DOACs; n = 1207 for VKA). There were no significant differences between DOACs versus VKAs with respect to odds for unresolved thrombus (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.26,1.41), embolic events (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.90,1.69), embolic events and death (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.84,1.45) or bleeding events (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74,1.72). CONCLUSIONS Our study and meta-analysis suggest similar efficacy and safety of DOACs in the treatment of LVT compared to VKA. These findings underscore the need for a randomized controlled trial.
-
4.
Meta-Analysis Comparing Direct Oral Anticoagulants to Vitamin K Antagonists for The Management of Left Ventricular Thrombus.
Abdelaziz, HK, Megaly, M, Debski, M, Abdelrahman, A, Abdelaziz, S, Kamal, D, Patel, B, More, R, Choudhury, T
Expert review of cardiovascular therapy. 2021;(5):427-432
Abstract
Introduction: To compare vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) treatment in patients with left ventricular (LV) thrombus. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism (SSE). Secondary outcomes were thrombus resolution, bleeding, and death.Areas covered: Five observational studies were included (total n = 700; VKAs n = 480; DOACs n = 220). There was a trend toward less SSE with VKAs compared to DOACs (5.2% vs. 9%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.29-1.01, p = 0.05). No significant difference between VKAs and DOACs in rates of thrombus resolution (61.6% vs. 56.8%; OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.58-1.73, p = 0.99), bleeding (8.2% vs. 4.4%; OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 0.69-3.77, p = 0.27), or death (12.7% vs. 11.8%; OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.59-2.0, p = 0.79) was noted. In non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention setting, VKAs were associated with less SSE in prespecified analysis (5.2% vs.10.6%; OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.25-0.93, p = 0.03).Expert opinion: The current meta-analysis suggests a trend toward higher SSE with the use of DOACs compared to VKAs. Our recommendation is for VKAs to retain the preferred management of LV thrombus with cautious off-label use of DOACs.
-
5.
Meta-Analysis Comparing the Effect of Rivaroxaban Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombi.
Saleh, Y, Al-Abcha, A, Abdelkarim, O, Elwany, M, Abdelfattah, OM, Abdelnabi, M, Almaghraby, A
The American journal of cardiology. 2021;:123-125
-
6.
The Efficacy of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in the Prevention of Left Atrial Thrombus in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Compared With Vitamin K Antagonists: A Meta-Analysis.
Liu, J, Wu, Y, Li, S, Song, L, Hu, C
The heart surgery forum. 2020;(6):E733-E739
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is still a paucity of data on the efficacy of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the prevention of left atrial thrombus (LAT) formation before cardioversion or catheter ablation. To assess the efficacy of NOACs in the prevention of LAT in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), we conducted a meta-analysis. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. For meta-analysis, dichotomous variables were analyzed by using the odds ratios (OR) computed using the Mantel Haenszel method (random models). All results were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS A total of 13 studies (one randomized controlled investigation and 12 observational studies) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the NOACs and VKAs groups with respect to the odds of LAT/LAAT formations (OR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.52-1.21; P = .29; (I2 = 14%). CONCLUSIONS NOACs were as effective as VKAs in the prevention of LAT/LAAT formation in patients with NVAF. Though patients on NOACs therapy showed a lower incidence of LAT/LAAT formation compared with VKAs, it was not significant (P = .29).
-
7.
Safety and Efficacy of Double Antithrombotic Therapy With Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Capodanno, D, Di Maio, M, Greco, A, Bhatt, DL, Gibson, CM, Goette, A, Lopes, RD, Mehran, R, Vranckx, P, Angiolillo, DJ
Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;(16):e017212
Abstract
Background The optimal antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is a topic of debate. We aimed at defining the efficacy and safety of double antithrombotic therapy with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) plus a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) against triple antithrombotic therapy with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) added to a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), illustrating the pooled cumulative distribution of events, the ranking of different NOACs tested in NOAC+SAPT combination strategies, and the state of the current evidence in the field. Methods and Results Randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of trial-defined major adverse cardiac events. The primary safety end point was clinically significant bleeding. Secondary end points were the components of primary end points. Trial-level pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses, reconstructed Kaplan-Meier analyses, and trial sequential analysis were performed. Four randomized controlled trials (10 969 patients) were included. No differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.94-1.22), and the NOAC+SAPT strategy showed a lower rate of clinically significant bleeding compared with VKA + DAPT (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.80). These results were consistent in reconstructed Kaplan-Meier analyses. In the Bayesian network meta-analysis, different NOACs displayed diverse risk-benefit profiles. Trial sequential analyses suggest that the evidence for the similarity in major adverse cardiac events compared with VKA + DAPT and the bleeding risk reduction observed with NOAC+SAPT is likely to be conclusive. Conclusions NOAC+SAPT does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events and reduces the risk of bleeding compared with VKA + DAPT in AF patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Various NOACs may have different risk-benefit profiles in combination strategies. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42020151089.
-
8.
Triple versus double antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and stent implantation: a meta‑analysis of randomized trials.
Grajek, S, Olasińska-Wiśniewska, A, Michalak, M, Ritter, SS
Kardiologia polska. 2019;(9):837-845
Abstract
BACKGROUND Appropriate double (DT) and triple (TT) antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and stent implantation is unclear. AIM: The aim of the study was to perform a meta‑analysis of studies comparing DT and TT in patients with atrial fibrillation and stent implantation. METHODS Of the 450 reports, 5 randomized trials were included in the meta‑analysis: WOEST, ISAR‑REACT, PIONEER AF‑PCI, RE‑DUAL PCI, and AUGUSTUS, with a total of 9931 patients. RESULTS Treatment efficacy, as assessed by the incidence of major adverse cardiac events, did not differ significantly between both therapeutic strategies: 8.98% for DT vs 8.71% for TT (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21). The incidence of hemorrhagic complications was significantly lower in patients treated with DT than TT (13.1% and 21.0%, respectively; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70). In over 90% of patients, DT included clopidogrel along with an oral anticoagulant (non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant or vitamin K antagonist). CONCLUSIONS The results of our meta‑analysis are clearly in line with the current trend of the fastest possible reduction in the use of TT in favor of DT. Almost half lower risk of hemorrhagic complications during DT compared with TT, with similar efficacy of the 2 strategies, provides an argument for the wider use of DT in patients with AF and stent implantation.
-
9.
Recurrent Thrombosis With Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.
Sanchez-Redondo, J, Espinosa, G, Varillas Delgado, D, Cervera, R
Clinical therapeutics. 2019;(9):1839-1862
Abstract
PURPOSE The treatment of thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) usually requires long-term anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists. The effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in APS has not been fully addressed. The purpose of this research was to analyze the efficacy (thrombotic event-free time) and tolerability (bleeding events) of DOACs in patients with APS. METHODS We performed a descriptive analysis of a systematic review of data from patients with APS treated with DOACs reported in the literature, via EMBASE, PubMed, and the European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology congresses. After systematic review, a meta-analysis of data from clinical trials was performed. FINDINGS A total of 728 patients, accounting for 731 courses of treatment with DOACs, were identified. The majority (48.3%) presented with triple anti-phospholipid antibody positivity. The prevalence of thrombosis during DOAC treatment was 13.9%. Analysis of risk factors for recurrent thrombosis suggested that a higher mean (SD) number of prior thrombotic events (1.80 [0.87] vs 1.67 [1.45]; P = 0.012), history of combined arterial and venous thrombosis (27.3% vs 9.2% [P < 0.0001]; odds ratio [OR] = 3.72 [95% CI, 1.91-7.25]), previous treatment with LMWH (9.8% vs 1.1% [P = 0.04]; OR = 9.95 [95% CI, 1.08-91.97]), use of immunosuppressant treatment (41.7% vs 12.7% [P = 0.03]; OR = 4.9 [95% CI, 1.21-19.76]), and no reason to switch anticoagulant treatment other than patient's decision (32% vs 2.8% [P = 0.001]; OR = 16.24 [95% CI, 3.16-83.52]) were associated with a high risk for re-thrombosis. Meta-Analysis did not show statistically relevant difference in risk of thrombosis or bleeding comparing warfarin with DOACs. IMPLICATIONS The findings from this systematic literature review and meta-analysis suggest that patients treated with DOACs and having risk factors such as history of recurrent thrombosis, a history of combined arterial and venous thrombosis, or a need for immunosuppressant treatment, may have higer ratio of thrombotic recurrence. There are limited data to inform decisions on the use of DOACs in patients with APS with different or no risk factors.
-
10.
Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for primary prevention of thrombosis in individuals with antiphospholipid antibodies.
Bala, MM, Paszek, E, Lesniak, W, Wloch-Kopec, D, Jasinska, K, Undas, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(7):CD012534
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies that have prothrombotic activity. Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications (recurrent miscarriage, premature birth, intrauterine growth retardation) and thrombotic events (both arterial and venous). The most common thrombotic events include brain ischaemia (stroke or transient ischaemic attack) and deep vein thrombosis. To diagnose APS, the presence of aPL antibodies in two measurements and at least one thrombotic event or pregnancy complication are required. It is unclear if people with positive aPL antibodies but without any previous thrombotic events should receive primary antithrombotic prophylaxis. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents versus placebo or no intervention or other intervention on the development of thrombosis in people with aPL antibodies who have not had a thrombotic event. We did not address obstetric outcomes in this review as these have been thoroughly addressed by other Cochrane Reviews. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (4 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last search 29 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (searched 4 December 2017), and trials registries (searched 29 November 2017). We also checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or their combinations, at any dose and mode of delivery with placebo, no intervention, or other intervention. We also included RCTs that compared antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents with each other or that compared two different doses of the same drug. We included studies performed in people of any age and with no history of thrombosis (as defined by APS Sapporo classification criteria or updated Sydney classification criteria), but with aPL antibodies confirmed on at last two separate measurements. The studies included both pregnant women who tested positive for aPL antibodies and had a history of recurrent obstetric complications, as well as non-pregnancy related cases with positive screening for antibodies, in accordance with the criteria mentioned above. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Pairs of authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies and quality of evidence using GRADE. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third review author when necessary. In addition, one review author checked all the extracted numerical data. MAIN RESULTS We included nine studies involving 1044 randomised participants. The studies took place in several countries and had different funding sources. No study was at low risk of bias in all domains. We classified all included studies as at unclear or high risk of bias in two or more domains. Seven included studies focused mainly on obstetric outcomes. One study included non-pregnancy-related cases, and one study included both pregnancy-related cases and other patients with positive results for aPL antibodies. The remaining studies concerned women with aPL antibodies and a history of pregnancy failure. Four studies compared anticoagulant with or without acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ASA only and observed no clear difference in thrombosis risk (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 3.77; 4 studies; 493 participants; low-quality evidence). No major bleeding was reported, but minor bleeding risk (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was higher in the anticoagulant with ASA group as compared with ASA alone in one study (RR 22.45, 95% CI 1.34 to 374.81; 1 study; 164 participants; low-quality evidence). In one study ASA was compared with placebo, and there were no clear differences in thrombosis (RR 5.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 42.97; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) or minor bleeding risk between the groups (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.34 to 29.01; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence), and no major bleeding was observed. Two studies compared ASA with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus placebo or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and no thrombotic events were observed in any of the groups. Moreover, there were no clear differences in the risk of bleeding requiring transfusion (RR 9.0, 95% CI 0.49 to 164.76; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or postpartum bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.81; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between the groups. Two studies compared ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWF or unfractionated heparin (UFH); no thrombotic events or major bleeding was reported. Mortality and quality of life data were not reported for any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate benefit or harm of using anticoagulants with or without ASA versus ASA alone in people with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss and with no such history; ASA versus placebo in people with aPL antibodies; and ASA with LMWH versus placebo or IVIG, and ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWH or UFH, in women with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, for the primary prevention of thrombotic events. In a mixed population of people with a history of previous pregnancy loss and without such a history treated with anticoagulant combined with ASA, the incidence of minor bleeding (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was increased when compared with ASA alone. Studies that are adequately powered and that focus mainly on thrombotic events are needed to draw any firm conclusions on the primary prevention of thrombotic events in people with antiphospholipid antibodies.