Tarun Dalia1, Shubham Lahan2, Sagar Ranka1, Amandeep Goyal1, Sara Zoubek3, Kamal Gupta1, Zubair Shah4. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. 2. University College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 3. Department of Pharmacology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA. zshah2@kumc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is not uncommon and pose a risk of systemic embolism, which can be mitigated by adequate anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used as alternatives to warfarin for anticoagulation, but their efficacy and safety profile has been debated. We aim to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of LVT. METHODOLOGY: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and LILCAS databases from inception to 14th August 2020 to identify relevant studies comparing warfarin and DOACs for LVT treatment and used the pooled data extracted from retrieved studies to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: We report pooled data on 1955 patients from 8 studies, with a mean age of 61 years and 59.7 years in warfarin and DOACs group, respectively. The pooled odds ratio for thrombus resolution was 1.11 (95% CI 0.51-2.39) on comparing warfarin to DOAC, but it did not reach a statistical significance (p = 0.76). The pooled risk ratio (RR) of stroke or systemic embolization and bleeding in patients treated with warfarin vs DOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64-1.68; p = 0.85), and 1.15 (95% CI 0.62-2.13; p = 0.57), respectively; with an overall RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.70-1.70; p = 0.48) for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs appears to be non-inferior or at least as effective as warfarin in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus without any statistical difference in stroke or bleeding complications.
BACKGROUND:Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is not uncommon and pose a risk of systemic embolism, which can be mitigated by adequate anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used as alternatives to warfarin for anticoagulation, but their efficacy and safety profile has been debated. We aim to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of LVT. METHODOLOGY: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and LILCAS databases from inception to 14th August 2020 to identify relevant studies comparing warfarin and DOACs for LVT treatment and used the pooled data extracted from retrieved studies to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: We report pooled data on 1955 patients from 8 studies, with a mean age of 61 years and 59.7 years in warfarin and DOACs group, respectively. The pooled odds ratio for thrombus resolution was 1.11 (95% CI 0.51-2.39) on comparing warfarin to DOAC, but it did not reach a statistical significance (p = 0.76). The pooled risk ratio (RR) of stroke or systemic embolization and bleeding in patients treated with warfarin vs DOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64-1.68; p = 0.85), and 1.15 (95% CI 0.62-2.13; p = 0.57), respectively; with an overall RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.70-1.70; p = 0.48) for mortality. CONCLUSIONS:DOACs appears to be non-inferior or at least as effective as warfarin in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus without any statistical difference in stroke or bleeding complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anticoagulation; DOAC/NOAC; Left ventricular thrombus; Relative risk; Warfarin
Authors: Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ronak Delewi; Robin Nijveldt; Alexander Hirsch; Constantin B Marcu; Lourens Robbers; Marriela E C J Hassell; Rianne H A de Bruin; Jim Vleugels; Anja M van der Laan; Berto J Bouma; René A Tio; Jan G P Tijssen; Albert C van Rossum; Felix Zijlstra; Jan J Piek Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Stuart J Connolly; Michael D Ezekowitz; Salim Yusuf; John Eikelboom; Jonas Oldgren; Amit Parekh; Janice Pogue; Paul A Reilly; Ellison Themeles; Jeanne Varrone; Susan Wang; Marco Alings; Denis Xavier; Jun Zhu; Rafael Diaz; Basil S Lewis; Harald Darius; Hans-Christoph Diener; Campbell D Joyner; Lars Wallentin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Borja Ibanez; Stefan James; Stefan Agewall; Manuel J Antunes; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Héctor Bueno; Alida L P Caforio; Filippo Crea; John A Goudevenos; Sigrun Halvorsen; Gerhard Hindricks; Adnan Kastrati; Mattie J Lenzen; Eva Prescott; Marco Roffi; Marco Valgimigli; Christoph Varenhorst; Pascal Vranckx; Petr Widimský Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ramez Alyacoub; Sherif Elkattawy; Shruti Jesani; Carlos Perez Hernandez; Hardik Fichadiya; Muhammad Atif Masood Noori; Omar Elkattawy; Edward Williams Journal: Eur J Case Rep Intern Med Date: 2022-06-23