Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use and Risk of Diverticular Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anticoagulants carry a significant risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. With the increase in use and availability of direct oral anticoagulants ("DOACs") more data are available regarding the risks of these medications. With diverticular bleeds being common, and hospitalization associated with gastrointestinal bleed increasing 30-day mortality, it is paramount to better understand the potential risks of using DOACs in this population. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken, using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently searched the literature, and initial screening was performed through title and abstract reading. Search terms included "direct" AND "anticoagulant" AND "diverticular bleed" OR "diverticular hemorrhage". The references of the selected studies were manually reviewed for any further relevant articles. Results: Literature search across the databases garnered 182 articles-157 unique abstracts after duplicate removal. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 6 studies were deemed relevant. The selected studies' reference lists yielded no further relevant articles. Discussion: Across the 6 studies, the incidence of diverticular bleeding in patients using DOACs was extremely low. Of 23,990 patients taking DOACs identified from two separate institutions, only 60 were found to have diverticular hemorrhage. Similarly, among 15,056 patients with diverticular hemorrhage, only 246 (1.6%) among them were taking DOACs. Generally, the studies found no increased diverticular bleeding rate between patients taking DOACs and those who were taking other anticoagulants, such as warfarin, or the general population. The studies also did not find an increased risk of rebleeding with DOAC continuation. Conclusion: The evidence suggests the risk of diverticular bleed among DOAC users is equivocal to those not taking DOACs, and the overall incidence of diverticular bleed in the DOAC population is low. As it stands, the risk of thrombotic events from not starting DOACs apparently outweighs the risk of diverticular bleed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".