OBJECTIVE: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used off-label to treat patients with left ventricular thrombus (LVT). We analyzed available meta-data comparing DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for efficacy and safety.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search and meta-analysis of observational and randomized data comparing DOACs versus VKAs in patients with LVT. Endpoints of interest were stroke or systemic embolism, thrombus resolution, all-cause death, and a composite bleeding endpoint. Estimates were pooled using a random-effect model meta-analysis, and their robustness was investigated using sensitivity and influential analyses.
RESULTS: We identified 22 articles (18 observational studies, 4 small randomized clinical trials) reporting on a total of 3,587 patients (2,489 VKA vs. 1,098 DOAC therapy). The pooled estimates for stroke or systemic embolism (OR 0.81; 95% CI [0.57, 1.15]) and thrombus resolution (OR 1.12; 95% CI [0.86; 1.46]) were comparable, and there was low heterogeneity overall across the included studies. DOAC use was associated with lower odds of all-cause death (OR 0.65; 95%CI [0.46; 0.92]) and a composite bleeding endpoint (OR 0.67; 95%CI [0.47; 0.97]). A risk of bias was evident particularly for observational reports, with some publication bias suggested in funnel plots.
CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive analysis of mainly observational data, the use of DOACs was not associated with a significant difference in stroke or systemic embolism, or thrombus resolution compared to VKA therapy. The use of DOACs was associated with a lower rate of all-cause death and fewer bleeding events. Adequately sized randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings, which could allow a wider adoption of DOACs in patients with LVT.

Current guidelines exclusively recommend vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA) as anticoagulation for patients after mechanical aortic valve replacement due to the increased postoperative risk of valve thrombosis and thrombo-embolism. Strict and regular assessments are mandatory during VKA therapy to ensure a potent anticoagulatory effect within the desired range. From the patients\' perspective, VKA are associated with relevant interactions and side effects reducing the quality of life and contributing to a high number of patients not achieving the optimal therapeutic target. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have replaced VKA therapy in the past for several indications, e.g., atrial fibrillation. However, it is still unclear if DOACs could replace VKA therapy in patients after mechanical aortic valve replacement. While the PROACT-Xa study did not show a sufficient anticoagulatory effect of apixaban plus aspirin compared to VKA therapy in patients after mechanical aortic valve replacement, the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and the oral factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban showed promising results in comparable patient cohorts in smaller studies and case reports. Factor Xa inhibitors were able to prevent thrombosis and thrombo-embolic events in patients after mechanical aortic valve replacement. Therefore, factor Xa inhibitors or factor XI inhibitors could provide a potent alternative to VKA for patients after a mechanical aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents are established as the anticoagulation strategy of choice for a variety of clinical risks. Despite this, uncertainty still exists with regard to their efficacy and safety for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in some patient populations; most notably those with low body weight (LBW) (<60 kg or body mass index [BMI] <18 kg/m2). Currently, there is a paucity of trial and non-trial data to support a prescriptive recommendation for their use in these patient cohorts. We have carried out a pooled systematic review of the most up to date published data of patients stabilized on various DOAC analogs with the view to ascertaining the exact matrices of their efficacy and safety in these cohorts of patients.
METHODS: We initially carried out a comprehensive search of databases from inception to June 2023 for eligible studies exploring the efficacy and safety of various analogs of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation who had low body weight. Databases accessed include PubMed, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness. We carried out a weighted comparison of derived pooled odd ratios (with their corresponding confidence intervals) of mortality outcomes between various DOACs using the random effects model.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies (n = 165,205 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. DOAC analogs were associated with increased stroke-related events, composite outcome, and mortality in low body weight patients compared to non-low body weight patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.92), (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.29-1.86), (OR 2.92, 95% CI 1.87-4.58), respectively. There was no significant difference in the safety outcome (major bleeding events) between the DOAC analogs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93-1.52).
CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analytical review comprising both real-world and randomized controlled studies, the use of DOAC analogs in low body weight patients (body weight of <60 kg or BMI<18 kg/m2) with atrial fibrillation was associated with increased risks of stroke-related events, composite outcomes, and mortality compared to non-low body weight cohorts patients. At the same time, there was no significant difference in terms of major bleeding events. This finding has provided the first resolution of pervading uncertainty surrounding the use of DOAC analogs in these patient cohorts and suggests the need for follow-up confirmatory systematic studies in this group of patients.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke, accounting for more than 37 million cases worldwide. In AF, the left atrial appendage (LAA) is the most common site of thrombus formation, and its ligation/closure with the WATCHMAN device is a good alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation, especially in patients with contraindications to warfarin. However, the implantation procedure is associated with various risks and complications. A short-term anticoagulant and antithrombotic administration are essential after implantation. However, no consensus has been reached on the optimal regimen. The WATCHMAN device is non-inferior to warfarin and is a safe alternative for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolization related to non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Important procedure-related complications include pericardial effusion (PE), device embolization, procedure-related ischemic stroke, and device-related thrombosis (DRT) formation. It is essential to optimize post-implantation therapy according to individual patient bleeding risk, DRT formation, and contraindication to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Recent studies have also shown that DOACs are a convenient and non-inferior substitute for warfarin. Furthermore, patients with absolute contraindications to OACs/DOACs can only be managed with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) should be used to assess residual peridevice flow and possible DRT formation at days 45 and 12 months. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and OAC are excellent choices for DRT treatment if detected. This review summarizes the most important complications of the WATCHMAN device in the existing literature and discusses various anticoagulation strategies and challenges post-implementation.

Valvular heart disease is a common disease often necessitating valve replacement. Mechanical heart valves (MHVs) are often used in younger patients because of their longer durability. Their main disadvantage is the need for lifelong anticoagulation. Warfarin is considered a standard treatment, but it is far from perfect. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a new and more patient-friendly alternative to warfarin when anticoagulation is required, but have not yet been approved for the indication of mechanical valves.
METHODS: A literature search of Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science (Core Collection), and Cochrane Library (from inception to May 2023) was performed using a search string that was well defined and not modified during the study. An extensive overview of the search terms used in each database can be found in the Appendix. Only prospective clinical trials were included in this review. A total of 10 publications were included in this review.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarizes the different types of DOACs and their possible use in the anticoagulation of mechanical valves. We aim to propose future directions in anticoagulation research for mechanical valves.
CONCLUSIONS: DOAC use in MHVs has been halted due to the failure of both dabigatran and apixaban in two major clinical trials. However, rivaroxaban was successful in two small clinical trials. Ample research is still needed to explore new valve designs as well as new anticoagulation targets.

Oral anticoagulation significantly reduces the incidence of dementia in atrial fibrillation patients. However, this protective effect has not been compared between Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC) and Vitamin K antagonists\' anticoagulants (VKA). We conducted an electronic search for potentially eligible studies through the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE and Web of Science. The outcome of interest was dementia. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Nine observational studies were included and 1,175,609 atrial fibrillation patients were enrolled. DOAC therapy was associated with a significant reduction when compared with patients under VKA therapy (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.99). The grade of confidence of our results was very low due to the risk of bias. DOAC therapy is associated with a significant decrease in the risk of dementia when compared with VKA therapy. However, the low certainty of the evidence along with the paucityof clinical trials dedicated to answering this important question underscores a need for global clinical research initiatives.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important aspect in cancer patients. There are various pharmacological methods used for thrombotic event treatment. DOACs (direct-acting oral anticoagulants) are gaining popularity among both physicians and researchers and are slowly starting to replace VKAs (vitamin K antagonists), thus becoming a substitute or alternative option for LMWHs (low-molecular-weight heparins). In this article, we present DOACs\' main therapeutic advantages and disadvantages in patients with cancer. The only major concern with using DOACs is the higher risk of bleeding; however, there are discrepancies in this matter. There are still some types of cancer for which DOACs are not recommended. Specific cancer types may influence the efficacy of DOAC therapy. Additionally, race and ethnicity may affect therapy in cancer patients with DOACs. A sizeable number of clinical trials are focused on comparing DOACs with other anticoagulants. The current guidelines of different scientific associations are not unanimous in their DOAC assessments. There is still a need for more evidence of DOACs\' potential advantages over other methods of anticoagulation in cancer patients to facilitate their position in this recommendation. This literature review presents the current state of knowledge about the use of DOACs in patients with neoplastic growth.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become the cornerstone for prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and patients with a history of venous thromboembolism. However, studies show that DOAC prescriptions are commonly inconsistent with guideline recommendations. DOAC dosing in the acutely ill patient could impose an even greater challenge. In this review, we describe the prevalence of inappropriate inpatient prescribing of DOACs and the associated rationales, predictors and clinical consequences. With the aim of promoting appropriate prescriptions of DOACs to hospitalized patients, we further outline DOAC dose reduction criteria justified by various guidelines, illustrating the complexities of appropriate dosing, especially in acutely ill patients. Moreover, we will discuss the impact of anticoagulant stewardship programs and the vital role that pharmacists may play in optimizing inpatient DOAC treatment.

UNASSIGNED: In case of bleeding patients and in acute care, the assessment of residual direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) activity is essential for evaluating the potential impact on hemostasis, especially when a timely decision on urgent surgery or intervention is required. Viscoelastic tests are crucial in a modern goal-directed coagulation management to assess patients\' coagulation status. However, the role of viscoelastic test to detect and quantify residual DOAC plasma levels is controversially discussed. The aim of this review was to systematically summarize the evidence of viscoelastic tests for the assessment of residual DOAC activity.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for original articles investigating the effect of rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, or dabigatran plasma levels on different viscoelastic tests of the adult population from database inception to December 31, 2021.
UNASSIGNED: We included 53 studies from which 31 assessed rivaroxaban, 22 apixaban, six edoxaban, and 29 dabigatran. The performance of viscoelastic tests varied across DOACs and assays. DOAC specific assays are more sensitive than unspecific assays. The plasma concentration of rivaroxaban and dabigatran correlates strongly with the ROTEM EXTEM, ClotPro RVV-test or ECA-test clotting time (CT) and TEG 6s anti-factor Xa (AFXa) or direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI) channel reaction time (R). Results of clotting time (CT) and reaction time (R) within the normal range do not reliable exclude relevant residual DOAC plasma levels limiting the clinical utility of viscoelastic assays in this context.
UNASSIGNED: Viscoelastic test assays can provide fast and essential point-of-care information regarding DOAC activity, especially DOAC specific assays. The identification and quantification of residual DOAC plasma concentration with DOAC unspecific viscoelastic assays are not sensitive enough, compared to recommended anti-Xa activity laboratory measurements.
UNASSIGNED: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=320629], identifier [CRD42022320629].

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia among older patients, associated with thromboembolic events. Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC) are the treatment of choice for most patients, but its use may have risks on standard dose. However, it is still unclear the effects related with the use of a lower dose off labelled DOAC.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of off-label underdose use of DOAC in patients with AF.
MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO databases and EMBASE were searched for observational longitudinal studies evaluating the outcomes on off label underdosed patients compared with standard dosed patients with AF. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95%Cis.
Eighteen cohort studies evaluating 237,533 patients with AF were included. Off-label underdose DOAC use is associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality [HR = 1.27 (95%CI 1.09-1.48)] and cardiovascular composite outcomes [HR = 1.32 (95%CI 1.08-1.62)], when compared with standard dose DOAC use. The effects in thromboembolic events [HR = 1.14 (95%CI 1.00-1.31)], major bleeding [HR = 1.02 (95%CI 0.91-1.15)], and composite of ischemic and bleeding events [HR = 1.22 (95%CI 0.79-1.88)] were not statistically significant. The certainty in the evidence was low or very low.
Off label underdose DOAC use is associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular composite outcomes, compared with standard dose.