Evaluating direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for treatment of left ventricular thrombus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Introduction Left ventricular thrombi are associated with high rates of stroke and systemic embolism (1). While vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have historically been the anticoagulant of choice, they have a narrow therapeutic window and require frequent monitoring. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer more predictable anticoagulation but the use of DOACs to treat left ventricular thrombus has not been well studied (1,2). Guideline recommendations around the topic are based on expert consensus and very low-quality evidence. Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis compares DOACs or VKAs in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus. Outcomes of interest were stroke and systemic embolism, thrombus resolution, any bleeding, major bleeding, and mortality. Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ACPJC, and Web of Science for studies comparing DOACs and VKAs in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus. We also searched reference lists from included studies and relevant conferences' proceedings. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and then the full-text of potentially relevant citations in duplicate. They then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias in duplicate. The data was analyzed using Revman 5.3. We used the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model to pool the weighted effect of estimates across all studies. The pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results Of 443 citations screened, 12 observational studies (n=2,225) were included. We found no randomized controlled trial addressing the question. Most included studies were at high risk of bias due to unmatched baseline variables. We found no significant difference in any of our outcomes with DOACs versus VKAs: stroke and systemic embolism (RR 1.14, 95% CI [0.82, 1.58], p=0.43), thrombus resolution (RR 1.02, 95% CI [0.91, 1.15], p=0.69), any bleeding (RR 1.47, 95% CI [0.65, 3.33], p=0.36), major bleeding (RR 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 4.21], p=0.32), and mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI [0.67, 1.45], p=0.95). Evidence for each of these outcomes was of very low-quality due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of the studies. Conclusions Very low quality evidence suggests no difference in outcomes with DOACs versus VKAs in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus. More robust data are needed to guide clinicians. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
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 | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".