OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and type 2 valvular heart disease (VHD).
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, LILACS, and MEDLINE databases to retrieve, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NOACs and VKAs in patients with AF and type 2 VHD, excluding mitral stenosis (moderate to severe, of rheumatic origin) or mechanical heart valves. The efficacy outcomes assessed were stroke and systemic embolism (SE), while safety outcomes included major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
RESULTS: Seven RCTs, including 16,070 patients with AF and type 2 VHD, were included. NOACs reduced the risk of stroke/SE (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.89; P = 0.0005), with no significant difference in major bleeding (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). The risk of ICH was reduced with NOACs (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; P = 0.003). For patients with AF and bioprosthetic heart valve (five trials, 2805 patients), stroke/SE risks (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.44-0.96) with NOACs were superior to VKAs. Major bleeding risks without ENVISAGE TAVI AF trial (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.94; P = 0.03) with NOACs were superior to VKAs. The risks of ICH (RR, 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-1.09; P = 0.09) with NOACs were comparable to VKAs.
CONCLUSIONS: NOACs demonstrate efficacy and safety in patients with AF and type 2 VHD and reduce the risk of stroke/SE and ICH when compared with those with VKAs.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is prevalent among patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing dialysis, and both conditions are associated with a heightened risk of cardiovascular diseases. Anticoagulation is essential for preventing thromboembolic complications in these patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of factor Xa inhibitors compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for AF patients on dialysis.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published up to June 2024. Eligible studies compared factor Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) with VKAs in AF patients on dialysis, with primary outcomes of stroke or systemic embolism(SSE) and major bleeding.
RESULTS: A total of 7 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational cohorts) were included. For the RCTs, the use of factor Xa inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of SSE compared to VKAs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.15-0.93). There was no significant difference in the risk of major bleeding events between the two groups (OR = 0.65, 95%CI:0.32-1.33). Observational cohort studies yielded similar results with a decreased risk of SSE (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74, 95%CI:0.57-0.96) and no significant difference in major bleeding (HR = 0.87, 95%CI:0.62-1.22). No differences in treatment effect between apixaban and rivaroxaban were observed for efficacy (p-interaction = 0.44) and safety (p-interaction = 0.21) outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Factor Xa inhibitors, particularly apixaban and rivaroxaban, were associated with a lower risk of SEE without an increase in major bleeding, which might be convenient alternatives to VKAs in managing AF in patients with ESKD on dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Since several studies have examined the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in treating patients with splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT), we conducted a meta-analyses to assess the safety and efficacy of DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this population.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until June 2024. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect measures to compare DOACs with VKAs.
RESULTS: A total of 9 observational studies were included. The pooled analysis revealed that a trend towards higher complete recanalization rates with DOACs (71.4%) compared to VKAs (55.3%), though not statistically significant (OR 1.95; 95%CI 0.70 to 5.44). For SVT extension, a significant effect was observed favoring DOACs (OR 0.12; 95%CI 0.03 to 0.54). No significant differences were found in other efficacy outcomes or safety outcomes, except for major bleeding, which was significantly lower with DOACs (OR 0.27; 95%CI 0.13 to 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS: DOACs are superior to VKAs in SVT extension and major bleeding, suggesting that DOACs may be a favorable treatment option in the treatment of SVT.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with cancer. Both cancer and its treatments increase the risk of developing VTE. Specific cancer types and individual patient comorbidities increase the risk of developing cancer-associated VTE, and the risk of bleeding is increased with anticoagulation therapies. The aims of this article are to summarize the latest evidence for treating cancer-associated VTE, discuss the practical considerations involved, and share best practices for VTE treatment in patients with cancer. The article pays particular attention to challenging contexts including patients with brain, lung, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary tumors and those with hematological malignancies. Furthermore, the article summarizes specific clinical scenarios that require additional treatment considerations, including extremes of body weight, nausea and gastrointestinal disturbances, compromised renal function, and anemia, and touches upon the relevance of drug-drug interactions. Historically, vitamin K antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have been used as therapy for cancer-associated VTE. The development of direct oral anticoagulants has provided additional treatment options, which, in certain instances, offer advantages over LMWHs. There are numerous factors that need to be considered when treating cancer-associated VTE, and although various treatment guidelines are helpful, they do not reflect each unique scenario that may arise in clinical practice. This article provides a summary of the latest evidence and a practical approach for treating cancer-associated VTE.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulant drugs are a valuable tool for minimizing thrombotic risks in at-risk patients. The purpose of this study is to conduct a literature review highlighting the management of these drugs during daily clinical dental practice.
METHODS: We limited our search to English-language papers published between 1 January 1989, and 7 March 2024, in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science that were relevant to our topic. In the search approach, the Boolean keywords \"anticoagulant AND dentistry\" were used.
RESULTS: Twenty-five clinical trials were included for final review from 623 articles obtained from the databases Web of Science (83), PubMed (382), and Scopus (158), eliminating duplicates and 79 off-topic items, resulting in 419 articles after removing 315 entries and confirming eligibility. Overall, these studies support the use of local hemostatic measures to manage the risk of bleeding in patients on anticoagulant therapy undergoing dental procedures and highlight the importance of greater education and collaboration among healthcare professionals.
CONCLUSIONS: Research and clinical investigation have improved understanding and management of dental procedures in patients undergoing anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Hemostatic agents, clinical protocols, risk factors, and continuous education are essential for navigating the complexities of anticoagulant therapy, ensuring optimal outcomes and enhancing patient well-being.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a predominant contributor to morbidity and mortality, and stroke prevention remains the mainstay for the management of AF. The precise mechanism involved in thrombus formation remains unknown. However, factors such as stretch-induced fibrosis, endothelial dysfunction, disordered atrial contractions, and pro-thrombotic states have been postulated for the development of AF. Various risk assessment strategies have been acknowledged for determining the risk of stroke in AF, of which the congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease, age between 65-74, and female sex (CHA2DS2-VASc) score remains the ultimate risk stratification tool. For the longest time, vitamin K antagonists (VKA) were the only oral anticoagulants available but were associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were approved and considered more efficient and safer than or as secure as warfarin in stroke prevention and lowering intra-cranial bleeding events. The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of DOACs were also clarified in this article. This review article compiles current evidence-based data on the role of DOACs, uncovering their underlying mechanisms, and comparing their efficacy with warfarin in stroke prevention in AF.

Studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism (VTE). The impact of NOACs on chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) remains controversial. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of NOACs compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with CTEPH. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for relevant studies, encompassing data from inception until November 2023. The data were pooled using a fixed-effects model if the I2 value was less than 50%; otherwise, a random-effects model was employed. Overall, two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 4556 patients with CTEPH were included. Patients receiving NOACs exhibited a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.76) and major bleeding (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92) compared to those with VKAs. There were no significant differences in the rate of VTE recurrence (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.72-1.59), total bleeding (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60-1.01), and minor bleeding (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.73-1.69) between the two studied groups. Similar results were found in the subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.This meta-analysis provided evidence that NOACs could be superior to VKAs for the treatment of CTEPH. NOACs might be safe and a convenient alternative to VKAs for thromboprophylaxis in patients with CTEPH.

UNASSIGNED: Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been recommended as first-line anticoagulants for patients with left ventricular thrombosis (LVT). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are used as an alternative to the standard of care in anticoagulation. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of VKAs and DOACs in the treatment of patients with LVT.
UNASSIGNED: Studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. The main outcomes included stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), thrombus resolution, and bleeding events. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated with fixed effect or random effect models.
UNASSIGNED: Seventeen studies were included. Pooled estimate showed that DOACs had comparable efficacy in prevention of SSE (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80, 1.16; p = 0.677) and thrombus resolution as compared with VKAs (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.18; p = 0.193). DOACs significantly decreased the risk of stroke in patients with LVT (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.00; p = 0.048). However, this effect was not observed in the sensitive analysis by high-quality studies (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.02; p = 0.06). In terms of safety outcomes, DOACs had similar risk of bleeding events (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.80, 1.57; p = 0.386) and clinically relevant bleeding events (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.23, 1.03; p = 0.060). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that none of the variables (study design, concomitant antiplatelet medication, duration of follow-up, primary cause of LVT, sample size, types of DOACs) had an impact on the risk of SSE, thrombus resolution and bleeding events. Subgroup analysis based on the use of antiplatelet and treatment switching revealed that there were no significant differences among patients with different treatment regimens.
UNASSIGNED: Based on the present evidence, both DOACs and VKA offered similar effective and safe outcomes in patients with LVT.

UNASSIGNED: Recommendations for drug treatment of left ventricular thrombus (LVT) are based on the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) guidelines; however, the etiology of LVT has changed. Due to the lack of evidence regarding LVT treatment in the heart failure population, current heart failure guidelines do not cover LVT treatment. We sought to review the etiology of LVT and changes in antithrombotic therapy over the previous 12 years and explore the impact of anticoagulation treatment from a single center\'s experience.
UNASSIGNED: From January 2009 to June 2021, we studied 1675 patients with a discharge diagnosis of LVT at a single center to investigate the clinical characteristics, incidence of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), systemic embolism (SE), and major bleeding events. Patients were divided into an anticoagulant group and a non-anticoagulant group according to whether they received oral anticoagulant therapy at discharge.
UNASSIGNED: The study included 909 patients (anticoagulation, 510; no anticoagulation, 399). While overall antiplatelet therapy dramatically decreased, more patients with LVT received oral anticoagulation in 2021 (74.0%) than in 2009 (29.6%). In addition, more than half of the patients had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) each year. The all-cause mortality was 17.3% during 3.8 years of follow-up. The incidences of cardiovascular death, stroke, MACCE, SE, and major bleeding were 16.0%, 3.3%, 19.8%, 5.1%, and 1.7%, respectively. The anticoagulation group had a significantly higher proportion of dilated cardiomyopathy than the non-anticoagulation group (24.7% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001), and a lower LVEF (34.0 vs. 41.0, p < 0.001). The anticoagulation group also had a higher probability of adverse events on long-term follow-up (p > 0.05). A multivariable competing risk regression model found no significant difference in all six endpoints between the groups (all p > 0.05). Similar results were found by matched and weighted data analysis. Diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio (HR), 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-1.93; p = 0.027), renal insufficiency (HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.60-3.50; p < 0.001), history of previous stroke (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.13-2.29; p = 0.009), and HFrEF (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.78-3.64; p < 0.001) were predictors of increased risk of MACCE.
UNASSIGNED: Heart failure, rather than acute myocardial infarction, is currently the primary cause of LVT. A trend towards better prognosis in the no anticoagulation group was noted. Multivariable, matching and weighting analysis showed no improvement in prognosis with anticoagulant therapy. Our study does not negate the efficacy of anticoagulation but suggests the need to strengthen the management of anticoagulation in order to achieve better efficacy.

UNASSIGNED: Real-world, observational studies have investigated the safety profile of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) on Major Hemorrhage (MH) used for stroke prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the comparative safety of DOACs versus other DOACs and versus Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) adhering to PRISMA guidelines. We defined MH according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis statement or as the composite outcome of intracranial, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, respiratory, cavitary and musculoskeletal bleeding in case of studies using International Statistical Classification of Diseases codes for patient selection.
UNASSIGNED: We systematically investigated two databases (Medline, Embase) until April of 2021, gathered observational studies and extracted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on our outcome of interest. Additional subgroup analyses according to DOAC dosing, prior diagnosis of chronic kidney disease, prior diagnosis of stroke, history of previous use of VKA, the users\' age, the users\' gender and study population geographic region were conducted. All analyses were performed with a random-effects model.
UNASSIGNED: From this search, 55 studies were included and 76 comparisons were performed. The MH risk associated with Rivaroxaban use was higher than the risk with Dabigatran use (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.21-1.45, I 2 : 12.39%) but similar to VKA use (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.87-1.02, I 2 : 76.57%). The MH risk associated with Dabigatran use was lower than the risk with VKA use (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64-0.90, I 2 : 87.57%). The MH risk associated with Apixaban use was lower than the risk with Dabigatran use (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64-0.88, I 2 : 58.66%), with Rivaroxaban use (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.50-0.68, I 2 : 74.16%) and with VKA use (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.55-0.65, I 2 : 58.83%). Our aforementioned subgroup analyses revealed similar results.
UNASSIGNED: All in all, Apixaban was associated with a reduced MH risk compared to Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban and VKA. Dabigatran was associated with a reduced MH risk compared to both Rivaroxaban and VKA.