Abstract
Background Although vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are recommended as first-line anticoagulants for patients with left ventricular thrombus (LVT), accumulating evidence suggests novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) could be safe alternatives for VKAs. Efficacy and safety of NOACs should be assessed to justify their usage for LVT patients.
Design We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs as compared to VKAs in LVT patients.
Methods PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published until November 12, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant information from articles and assessed the study quality. Pooled effects were estimated using Mantel–Haenssel method and presented as risk ratios (RR) using fixed-effect model. Reporting followed the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guideline.
Results A total of 2467 LVT patients from 13 studies were included. Compared with VKAs, NOACs showed similar efficacy in prevention of stroke or systemic embolism (RR: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.80-1.16, P = 0.68) and thrombus resolution (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.72-1.09, P = 0.20), but significantly reduced the risk of stroke (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-1.00, P < 0.05). For safety outcomes, NOACs users showed similar risk of any bleedings (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.67-1.31, P = 0.70), but lower risk of clinically relevant bleedings (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-0.92, P = 0.03) compared with VKAs users.
Conclusions Compared with VKAs, NOACs acquired similar efficacy and safety profile for patients with LVT, but could reduce the risk of strokes and clinically relevant bleedings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2016-I2M-1-009) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (81970308).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The current analysis acquired an exemption from the institutional review board.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: This study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2016-I2M-1-009) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (81970308).
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Data Availability
Data for this analysis could be acquired through the original publications.