UNASSIGNED: Unusual site deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was defined as venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurring outside the conventional deep veins of the lower extremity or pulmonary arteries. However, the optimal anticoagulation therapy for unusual site DVT remained unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in unusual site DVT.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective cohort study enrolled consecutive patients at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital between January 2011 and December 2021 who were diagnosed with unusual site DVT. Patients were divided into two groups based on their ultimate medication choice: the warfarin group and the rivaroxaban group. The demographic characteristics were recorded for all enrolled patients. Clinical outcomes included recurrent VTE, bleeding complications and major bleeding.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 1,088 patients were divided into warfarin (n = 514) and rivaroxaban (n = 574) groups. After the stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, Hazard Ratios for warfarin vs. rivaroxaban of recurrent VTE, bleeding complications and major bleeding were 0.52(95% CI: 0.25-1.08), 0.30(95% CI: 0.14-0.60), and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.13-0.74), respectively. Risk of clinical outcomes in specified subgroups for age, gender, renal function, thrombosis sites and diagnosis were assessed. The interaction of gender and treatment on major bleeding was significant (P for interaction = 0.062). Otherwise, there was no significant interaction between the other subgroups and the treatment group in terms of clinical outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban exhibited comparable efficacy for the anticoagulant treatment of unusual site DVT, associated with a lower risk of bleeding complications and major bleeding.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare anticoagulation control and outcomes between usual medical care (UMC) and pharmacist-led anticoagulation services (PLAS) in patients receiving warfarin at the Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted, including 350 (66.7%) and 175 (33.3%) patients from the UMC and PLAS groups, respectively, from 525 patients. The time in therapeutic range (TTR) was determined using the Rosendaal method, with a TTR ≥ 65% set as the cut-off for optimal anticoagulation. The two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney U) test was used to compare continuous variables between groups. Categorical variables were compared between groups using Pearson\'s chi-square test or Fisher\'s exact test. Logistic regression and negative binomial regression analyses were conducted to identify the factors associated with suboptimal TTR and secondary outcomes, respectively, at the p values < 0.05, and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Compared with the UMC group, the patients in the PLAC group showed a significantly higher median (IQR) TTR [60.89% (43.5-74.69%) vs. 53.65% (33.92-69.14%), p < 0.001]. A significantly higher optimal TTR (≥ 65%) was achieved in the PLAC group (41.7% vs. 31.7%) than in the UMC group (p = 0.002). The odds of having a poor TTR were reduced by 43% (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.36-0.88, p = 0.01) among patients in the PLAC group compared to those in the UMC group. There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes between the groups, except for all-cause emergency visits (p = 0.003). The incidence of bleeding events decreased by 3% (IRR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.99, p < 0.001) for every increase in INR monitoring frequency. The incidence of thromboembolic events increased by a factor of 15.13 (IRR = 15.13, 95% CI = 1.47-155.52, p = 0.02) among patients with a high-risk CHA2DS2-VASc score compared with those with a moderate score.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the PLAC group had a significantly higher median TTR than those in the UMC group did. There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes between the groups, except for fewer all-cause emergency department visits in the PLAC group.

UNASSIGNED: Little is known how individual time-in-therapeutic-range (TTR) impacts the effectiveness and safety of warfarin therapy compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
UNASSIGNED: To compare the effectiveness and safety of standard dose DOACs to warfarin in patients with AF, while categorizing warfarin treated patients into quartiles based on their individual TTR.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a nationwide study including all patients with new-onset AF between 2011 and 2018 in Finland. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using Cox regression analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighted method to assess the risks of ischaemic stroke (IS), intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and mortality for users of apixaban (n = 12,426), dabigatran (n = 4545), rivaroxaban (n = 12,950) and warfarin (n = 43,548).
UNASSIGNED: The median TTR for warfarin users was 72%. Compared to the second best TTR quartile (reference), the risk of IS was higher in the two poorest TTR quartiles, and lower in the best TTR quartile and on rivaroxaban [2.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.85-2.85), 1.44 (1.18-1.75), 0.60 (0.47-0.77) and 0.72 (0.56-0.92)]. These differences were non-significant for apixaban and dabigatran. HR of ICH was 6.38 (4.88-8.35) and 1.87 (1.41-2.49) in the two poorest TTR groups, 1.44 (1.02-1.93) on rivaroxaban, and 0.58 (0.40-0.85) in the best TTR group compared to the reference group. Mortality was higher in the two poorest TTR groups and lowest in the best TTR group.
UNASSIGNED: The outcome was unsatisfactory in the two lowest TTR quartiles - in half of the patients treated with warfarin. The differences between the high TTR groups and standard dose DOACs were absent or modest.

Different dosing strategies exist to initiate warfarin, most commonly fixed warfarin dosing (FWD), clinical warfarin dosing (CWD), and genetic-guided warfarin dosing (GWD). Landmark trials have shown GWD to be superior when compared to FWD in the EU-PACT trial or CWD in the GIFT trial. COAG trial did not show differences between GWD and CWD. We aim to compare the anticoagulation quality outcomes of CWD and FWD. This is a prospective cohort study with a retrospective comparator. Recruited subjects in the CWD (prospective) arm were initiated on warfarin according to the clinical dosing component of the algorithm published in www.warfarindosing.org. The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage time in the therapeutic range (PTTR) from day 3 to 6 till day 28 to 35. The study enrolled 122 and 123 patients in the CWD and FWD, respectively. The PTTR did not differ statistically between CWD and FWD (62.2 ± 26.2% vs. 58 ± 25.4%, p = 0.2). There was also no difference between both arms in the percentage of visits with extreme subtherapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (<1.5; 15 ± 18.3% vs. 16.8 ± 19.1%, p = 0.44) or extreme supratherapeutic INR (>4; 7.7 ± 14.7% vs. 7.5 ± 12.4%, p = 0.92). We conclude that CWD did not improve the anticoagulation quality parameters compared to the FWD method.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). However, their safety and effectiveness in patients with AFib and cancer are inconclusive.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study by emulating a target trial. Patients with a record of cancer (breast, prostate, or lung), newly diagnosed with AFib initiated DOACs or warfarin within 3 months after AFib diagnosis from the 2012-2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database were included. We compared the risk of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and secondary outcomes (venous thromboembolism, intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and non-critical site bleeding) between patients who initiated DOACs and warfarin. Inverse probability treatment weights and inverse probability censoring weights were used to adjust imbalanced patient and disease characteristics and loss to follow-up between the two groups. Weighted pooled logistic regression were used to estimate treatment effect with hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CIs).
RESULTS: The incidence rates of stroke and major bleeding between DOAC and warfarin initiators were 9.97 vs. 9.91 and 7.74 vs. 9.24 cases per 1000 person-years, respectively. In adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, patients initiated DOACs had no statistically significant difference in risk of ischemic stroke (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.52-1.44) and major bleeding (HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.77-1.68) compared to those initiated warfarin. In adjusted per-protocol analysis, there was no statistical difference in risk of ischemic stroke (HR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.75-4.36) and lower risk for major bleeding, but the 95% CI was wide (HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.99) among DOAC initiators compared to warfarin initiators. The benefits in secondary outcomes were in favor of DOACs. The findings remained consistent across subgroups and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: DOACs are safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in the management of patients with AFib and cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Elective cardioversion (ECV) is routinely used in atrial fibrillation (AF) to restore sinus rhythm. However, it includes a risk of thromboembolism even during adequate oral anticoagulation treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of thromboembolic and bleeding complications after ECV in a real-life setting utilizing data from a large AF population.
RESULTS: This nationwide register-based study included all (n = 9625) Finnish AF patients undergoing their first-ever ECV between 2012 and 2018. The thromboembolic and bleeding complications within 30 days after ECV were analysed. The mean age of the patients was 67.7 ± 9.9 years, 61.2% were men, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.6 ± 1.6. Warfarin was used in 6245 (64.9%) and non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in 3380 (35.1%) cardioversions. Fifty-two (0.5%) thromboembolic complications occurred, of which 62% were ischaemic strokes, 25% transient ischaemic attacks, and 13% other systemic embolisms. Thromboembolic events occurred in 14 (0.4%) NOAC-treated patients and in 38 (0.6%) warfarin-treated patients (odds ratio 0.77; confidence interval: 0.42-1.39). The median time from ECV to the thromboembolic event was 2 days, and 78% of the events occurred within 10 days. Age and alcohol abuse were significant predictors of thromboembolic events. Among warfarin users, thromboembolic complications were more common with international normalized ratio (INR) <2.5 than INR ≥2.5 (0.9% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.026). Overall, 27 (0.3%) bleeding events occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of thromboembolic and bleeding complications related to ECV was low without significant difference between NOAC- and warfarin-treated patients. With warfarin, INR ≥2.5 at the time of cardioversion reduced the risk of thromboembolic complications.

UNASSIGNED: Overuse of antiplatelet therapy and underuse of gastroprotection contribute to preventable bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants.
UNASSIGNED: (1) Determine the feasibility of a factorial trial testing patient activation and clinician outreach to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risk in patients prescribed warfarin-antiplatelet therapy without proton pump inhibitor gastroprotection and (2) assess intervention acceptability.
UNASSIGNED: Pragmatic 2 × 2 factorial cluster-randomized controlled pilot comparing (1) a patient activation booklet vs usual care and (2) clinician notification vs clinician notification plus nurse facilitation was performed. The primary feasibility outcome was percentage of patients completing a structured telephone assessment after 5 weeks. Exploratory outcomes, including effectiveness, were evaluated using chart review, surveys, and semistructured interviews.
UNASSIGNED: Among 47 eligible patients, 35/47 (74.5%; 95% CI, 58.6%-85.7%) met the feasibility outcome. In the subset confirmed to be high risk for upper GI bleeding, 11/29 (37.9%; 95% CI, 16.9%-64.7%) made a medication change, without differences between intervention arms. In interviews, few patients reported reviewing the activation booklet; barriers included underestimating GI bleeding risk, misunderstanding the booklet\'s purpose, and receiving excessive health communication materials. Clinicians responded to notification messages for 24/47 patients (51.1%; 95% CI, 26.4%-75.4%), which was lower for surgeons than nonsurgeons (22.7% vs 76.0%). Medical specialists but not surgeons viewed clinician notification as acceptable.
UNASSIGNED: The proposed trial design and outcome ascertainment strategy were feasible, but the patient activation intervention is unlikely to be effective as designed. While clinician notification appears promising, it may not be acceptable to surgeons, findings which support further refinement and testing of a clinician notification intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support require long-term anticoagulation to reduce the risk of thromboembolic complications. Apixaban is a direct oral anticoagulant that has become first-line therapy; however, its safety in LVAD recipients has not been well described.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate whether, in patients with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD, treatment with apixaban would be feasible and comparable with respect to safety and freedom from the primary composite outcome of death or major hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs) (stroke, device thrombosis, major bleeding, aortic root thrombus, and arterial non-central nervous system thromboembolism) as compared with treatment with warfarin.
METHODS: The DOAC LVAD (Evaluation of the Hemocompatibility of the Direct Oral Anti-Coagulant Apixaban in Left Ventricular Assist Devices) trial was a phase 2, open label trial of LVAD recipients randomized 1:1 to either apixaban 5 mg twice daily or warfarin therapy. All patients were required to take low-dose aspirin. Patients were followed up for 24 weeks to evaluate the primary composite outcome.
RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were randomized: 14 patients to warfarin and 16 patients to apixaban. The median patient age was 60 years (Q1-Q3: 52-71 years), and 47% were Black patients. The median time from LVAD implantation to randomization was 115 days (Q1-Q3: 56-859 days). At 24 weeks, the primary composite outcome occurred in no patients receiving apixaban and in 2 patients (14%) receiving warfarin (P = 0.12); these 2 patients experienced major bleeding from gastrointestinal sources.
CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation with apixaban was feasible in patients with an LVAD without an excess of HRAEs or deaths. This study informs future pivotal clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of apixaban in LVAD recipients. (Evaluation of the Hemocompatibility of the Direct Oral Anti-Coagulant Apixaban in Left Ventricular Assist Devices [DOAC LVAD]; NCT04865978).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implantation.
METHODS: This retrospective analysis includes data from 100 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who underwent IVC filter implantation due to a free-floating thrombus (n = 64), thrombus propagation (n = 8), or acute bleeding (n = 8) on therapeutic anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis (n = 8), or had previously implanted filter with DVT recurrence. Patients were treated with warfarin (n = 41) or rivaroxaban (n = 59) for 3-12 months. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence and bleeding events were assessed at 12 months follow-up.
RESULTS: Three (7.3%) cases of VTE recurrence without IVC filter occlusion occurred on warfarin and none on rivaroxaban. The only (2.4%) major bleeding occurred on warfarin. Three (5.1%) clinically relevant non-major bleedings were detected on rivaroxaban. No significant differences existed between groups when full and propensity scores matched datasets were compared.
CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban seems not less effective and safe than warfarin after IVC filter implantation.

OBJECTIVE: Incidence of bleeding amongst warfarin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users is greater following a respiratory tract infection (RTI). It is unclear whether immediate antibiotics modify this association. We estimated the risk of bleeding amongst warfarin and DOAC users with RTI by antibiotic treatment.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD for adults in England prescribed warfarin or a DOAC, who sought primary care for an RTI between 1st January 2011 and 31st December 2019. Outcomes were major bleeding (hospital admission for intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding), and non-major bleeding (hospital admission or General Practice consult for epistaxis, haemoptysis, or haematuria). Cox models derived hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, adjusting for confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting.
RESULTS: Of 14 817 warfarin and DOAC users consulting for an RTI, 8768 (59%) were prescribed immediate antibiotics and 6049 (41%) were not. Approximately 49% were female, and median age was 76 years. Antibiotics were associated with reduced risk of major bleeding (adjusted HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.58). This was consistent across several sensitivity analyses. Antibiotics were also associated with a reduced risk of non-major bleeding (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate antibiotics were associated with reduced risk of bleeding amongst warfarin and DOAC users with an RTI. Further work is needed to understand mechanisms and confirm whether a lower threshold for antibiotic use for RTI in this population may be beneficial.