Background/Objectives: There are limited data on the risks and benefits of using Andexanet alfa (AA) compared with four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) for the reversal of factor Xa inhibitor-associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Our aim was to describe a compilation of the information available in the literature to date. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until December 2023. Following the \"Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)\" guidelines, our systematic literature review included studies that were retrospective in design and evaluated both drugs to control bleeding and complications (death and thromboembolic events). Two researchers re-examined the studies for relevance, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. No meta-analyses were performed for the results. Results: In this limited patient sample, we found no differences between published articles in terms of neuroimaging stability or thrombotic events. However, some studies show significant differences in mortality, suggesting that one of the AAs may be superior to 4F-PCC. Conclusions: Our qualitative analysis shows that AA has a better efficacy profile compared with 4F-PCC. However, further studies monitoring these patients and a multicenter collaborative network dedicated to this topic are needed.

UNASSIGNED: This review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients on dialysis.
UNASSIGNED: All types of studies published on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science up to 10 September 2023 and comparing outcomes of apixaban vs. VKA in dialysis patients were eligible.
UNASSIGNED: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six retrospective studies were included. Apixaban treatment was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.77; I2 = 50%) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.98, I2 = 9%) compared to VKA. Meta-analysis also showed that the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.85, I2 = 16%) and intracranial bleeding (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.84, I2 = 0%) was significantly reduced with apixaban. Meta-analysis showed no difference in the risk of ischemic stroke (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.06, 2.69, I2 = 0%), mortality (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.74, 2.16, I2 = 94%) and recurrent venous thromboembolism (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.21, I2 = 0%) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no difference in bleeding outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Low-quality evidence from a mix of RCTs and retrospective studies shows that apixaban may have better safety and equivalent efficacy as compared to VKA in dialysis patients. Apixaban treatment correlated with significantly reduced risk of major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in observational studies but not in RCTs. The predominance of retrospective data warrants caution in the interpretation of results.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and their comparison with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), conflicting results have been reported regarding the optimal treatment for left ventricular thrombosis (LVT).
OBJECTIVE: In this meta-analysis, we intend to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of these treatments.
METHODS: All clinical trials and cohorts that compared the efficacy or safety of VKAs with DOACs in the treatment of LVTs were systematically searched until April 15, 2023.
RESULTS: The results of 32 studies with a pooled sample size of 4213 patients were extracted for meta-analysis. DOACs, especially rivaroxaban and apixaban, cause faster resolution, lower mortality, and fewer complications (SSE and bleeding events) than VKAs in the management of LVTs.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with VKAs, DOACs result in significantly faster (only rivaroxaban) and safer resolution of left ventricular thrombosis.

Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies\' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations about proper anticoagulation in obese patients, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2, are not yet clearly defined. Obese patients were included in randomized controlled trials comparing new anticoagulants (NOACs) with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation or thromboembolism.
METHODS: We performed a medline search entering proper criteria and finally 6 post-hoc analysis of RCTs, reporting outcome according to BMI, were included in this meta-analysis. Two major outcomes were considered end points in our meta-analysis; thrombosis, including ischemic cerebral events (transient or not) and venous thrombosis (DVD) /pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding, including major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding.
RESULTS: In the NOACs treated group, thrombosis occurred less frequently in obese vs non-obese patients; RR and 95 % CI 0,75 (0,58-0,97), p = 0,03, while low heterogeneity was observed (I2= 40 %). In the warfarin treated subgroup there was statistically significant difference with less thrombotic events occurring in the obese vs non-obese patients; RR and (95 % CI) 0,80 (0,66-0,98), p = 0,03, and heterogeneity was low (I2 = 24 %). This protective effect called the obesity paradox is limited to obese patients anticoagulated for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); RR (95 % CI) was 0,70 (0,58-0,85) p = 0,03 and I2 = 24 %. Bleeding events were similar under both NOACs and warfarin in obese vs non-obese analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients anticoagulated for NVAF with either standard dose of xabans or INR guided warfarin are more efficiently protected against thrombosis compared to non-obese patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex hemostatic changes. Systemic anticoagulation is initiated to prevent clotting in the ECMO system, but this comes with an increased risk of bleeding. Evidence on the use of anti-Xa-guided monitoring to prevent bleeding during ECMO support is limited. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the association between anti-factor Xa-guided anticoagulation and hemorrhage during ECMO.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed (up to August 2023).
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023448888.
RESULTS: Twenty-six studies comprising 2293 patients were included in the analysis, with six works being part of the meta-analysis. The mean anti-Xa values did not show a significant difference between patients with and without hemorrhage (standardized mean difference -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19; 0.28, p = .69). We found a positive correlation between anti-Xa levels and unfractionated heparin dose (UFH; pooled estimate of correlation coefficients 0.44; 95% CI: 0.33; 0.55, p < .001). The most frequent complications were any type of hemorrhage (pooled 36%) and thrombosis (33%). Nearly half of the critically ill patients did not survive to hospital discharge (47%).
CONCLUSIONS: The most appropriate tool for anticoagulation monitoring in ECMO patients is uncertain. Our analysis did not reveal a significant difference in anti-Xa levels in patients with and without hemorrhagic events. However, we found a moderate correlation between anti-Xa and the UFH dose, supporting its utilization in monitoring UFH anticoagulation. Given the limitations of time-guided monitoring methods, the role of anti-Xa is promising and further research is warranted.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to evaluate current literature on the treatment of factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeds with 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC), with a focus on the effect of low versus high dosing of 4F-PCC on hemostatic efficacy and safety outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: A search of PubMed and EBSCOhost was performed to identify studies evaluating patients with a factor Xa inhibitor-bleed treated with 4F-PCC at either low or high doses. Studies of patients receiving alternative reversal agents such as fresh frozen plasma and andexanet alfa or where no comparator group was evaluated were excluded from the analysis. To assess the effect of these 4F-PCC dosing strategies, the primary outcome of interest was hemostatic efficacy. Four studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in this review. In each of the included studies, similar rates of hemostatic efficacy, hospital mortality, and venous thromboembolism were observed in the low- and high-dose cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest low- and high-dose 4F-PCC may confer similar clinical effectiveness and safety; however, these findings should be evaluated and confirmed with future prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) including rivaroxaban and apixaban are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus apixaban in the treatment of VTE.
METHODS: We conducted an electronic search for studies that directly compared treatment with rivaroxaban and apixaban in adult patients with VTE. The relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and pooled using a fixed-effect model unless significant heterogeneity was present (I2 > 40%), then random-effects model was used. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent VTE (rVTE) and major bleeding events, respectively.
RESULTS: Nine observational studies were included in our meta-analysis, assessing 24,156 patients for apixaban and 38,847 for rivaroxaban. Pooling of data for our primary efficacy outcome showed a trend towards lower risk of rVTE with apixaban compared to rivaroxaban (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57-1.04, I2 = 53%). Analysis of our primary safety outcome showed a significantly lower risk of major bleeding with apixaban compared to rivaroxaban (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, I2 = 0%). Apixaban was associated with significantly decreased risk of net clinical harm, clinically relevant non major bleeding (CRNMB) and any bleeding, compared to rivaroxaban (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.92, I2 = 50%; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.67, I2 = 7%; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.59-0.70, I2 = 0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban is associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to rivaroxaban for treatment of VTE. Given the limitations of the existing evidence, further interventional studies comparing the two drugs are needed.

BACKGROUND: Isolated calf muscular vein thrombosis (ICMVT) can result in pulmonary embolism, but the treatment of ICMVT remains controversial. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the optimal treatment for the ICMVT by comparing the efficacy and safety of different treatments.
METHODS: A network meta-analysis was conducted to search for studies published from database inception to April 30, 2022, that compared the outcomes of 2 or more treatments for ICMVT. The primary outcomes were efficacy (resolution rate) and safety (adverse reactions). Data were extracted following predefined hierarchy and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. We estimated summary odds ratios with 95% credibility intervals using Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects.
RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were enrolled in the study. In terms of efficacy and safety, urokinase thrombolysis combined with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was most effective but had the lowest safety, while physical therapy was safest but had the lowest efficacy. More important, direct oral factor Xa inhibitors were most likely to be second most effective and safe compared with other treatments. For the duration of treatment, anticoagulant therapy for at least 3 months could effectively increase the resolution rate of ICMVT.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering both efficacy and safety, taking direct oral factor Xa inhibitors for at least 3 months was the optimal treatment compared to LMWH, urokinase thrombolysis combined LMWH, physical therapy and warfarin for patients with ICMVT.

Limited real-world data show that rivaroxaban following dosage criteria from either ROCKET AF [20 mg/day or 15 mg/day if creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 50 mL/min] or J-ROCKET AF (15 mg/day or 10 mg/day if CrCl < 50 mL/min) is associated with comparable risks of thromboembolism and bleeding with each other in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We are aimed to study whether these observations differ between Asian and non-Asian subjects.
A systematic review and meta-analysis with random effects was conducted to estimate the aggregate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using PubMed and MEDLINE databases from 8 September 2011 to 31 December 2022 searched for adjusted observational studies that reported relevant clinical outcomes of NVAF patients receiving rivaroxaban 10 mg/day if CrCl > 50 mL/min, on-label dose rivaroxaban eligible for ROCKET AF or J-ROCKET AF, and rivaroxaban 20 mg/day if CrCl < 50 mL/min. Effectiveness and safety endpoints were compared between ROCKET AF and J-ROCKET AF dosing regimen in Asian and non-Asian subjects, separately. Also, risks of events of rivaroxaban 10 mg/day despite of CrCl > 50 mL/min and rivaroxaban 20 mg/day despite of CrCl < 50 mL/min were compared to that of \'ROCKET AF/J-ROCKET AF dosing\'. Sensitivity analyses were performed by sequential elimination of each study from the pool. The meta-regression analysis was performed to explore the influence of potential factors on the effectiveness and safety outcomes. Eighteen studies involving 67 571 Asian and 54 882 non-Asian patients were included. Rivaroxaban following J-ROCKET AF criteria was associated with comparable risks of thromboembolism in the Asian subgroup, whereas rivaroxaban following J-ROCKET AF criteria was associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality (HR:1.30; 95% CI:1.05-1.60) compared with that of ROCKET AF criteria in the non-Asian population. There were no differences in risks of major bleeding between rivaroxaban following J-ROCKET AF vs. ROCKET AF criteria either in the Asian or non-Asian population. The use of rivaroxaban 10 mg despite of CrCl > 50 mL/min was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism (HR:1.64; 95% CI:1.28-2.11) but lower risk of major bleeding (HR:0.72; 95% CI:0.57-0.90) compared with eligible dosage criteria. The use of rivaroxaban 20 mg despite of CrCl < 50 mL/min was associated with worse clinical outcomes in the risks of thromboembolism (HR:1.32; 95% CI:1.09-1.59), mortality (HR:1.33; 95% CI:1.10-1.59), and major bleeding (HR:1.26; 95% CI:1.03-1.53) compared with eligible dosage criteria. The pooled results were generally in line with the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes by removing a single study at one time. Meta-regression analyses failed to detect the bias in most potential patient characteristics associated with the clinical outcomes.
Rivaroxaban dosing regimen following J-ROCKET criteria may serve as an alternative to ROCKET AF criteria for the Asian population with NVAF, whereas the dosing regimen following ROCKET AF criteria was more favourable for the non-Asian population. The use of rivaroxaban 10 mg despite of CrCl > 50 mL/min was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism but a lower risk of major bleeding, while use of rivaroxaban 20 mg despite of CrCl < 50 mL/min was associated with worse outcome in most clinical events.