Meta-Analysis Investigating the Role of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in the Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombi

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for the Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study

Vitamin K antagonists remain the mainstay of therapy in patients with left ventricular thrombus (LVT) because the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is not well-established. We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of adults admitted between January 2015 and December 2021 and diagnosed with LVT to compare the safety and efficacy of warfarin versus DOACs. The primary outcome was thrombus resolution. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, bleeding events, and stroke or systemic embolism. A total of 189 patients were included. The rate of thrombus resolution was similar in patients with LVT treated with DOACs compared with those treated with warfarin (DOACs 73.9%vs warfarin 68.5%, p = 0.489). In addition, all-cause mortality (DOACs 13.04% vs warfarin 9.79%, p = 0.583), bleeding events (DOACs 19.57% vs warfarin 13.99%, p = 0.361), and stroke or systemic embolism (DOACs 10.87% vs warfarin 15.38%, p = 0.446) were all similar in the 2 groups. In the propensity-matched group, 90 patients were included. Multivariate analysis showed no significant difference of using warfarin or DOACs on thrombus resolution (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.858 to 1.029, p = 0.18), all-cause mortality (OR 1.032, 95% CI 0.906 to 1.176, p = 0.6354), bleeding events (OR 1.694, 95% CI 0.168 to 17.097, p = 0.655), or stroke or systemic embolism (OR 1.947, 95% CI 0.087 to 4.756, p = 0.6747). In conclusion, in our retrospective analysis, DOACs had similar efficacy and safety compared with warfarin in the treatment of LVT.

Emerging Trends in Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Comprehensive Review of Non-Ischemic and Ischemic Cardiopathies, Including Eosinophilic Myocarditis, Chagas Cardiomyopathy, Amyloidosis, and Innovative Anticoagulant Approaches

This comprehensive review explores the intricate aspects of left ventricular thrombus (LVT), a potential complication in both ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathies. It provides a thorough understanding of left ventricular thrombus, revealing its uncommon incidence in the general population (7 cases per 10,000 patients), predominantly linked to ischemic heart diseases (ICMs) at an 80% prevalence rate. Diagnostic tools, notably transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), demonstrate varying sensitivity but remain indispensable in specific clinical contexts related to LVT as non-invasive diagnostic modalities. A detailed comparison between ICM patients and those with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) who have left ventricular thrombus reveals subtle distinctions with significant clinical implications. This analysis underscores the importance of these imaging techniques in distinguishing between the two conditions. Additionally, we explored the occurrence of LVT in specific non-ischemic cardiomyopathies, including Takotsubo syndrome, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, eosinophilic myocarditis, Chagas disease, cardiac amyloidosis, and several other conditions. The article further delves into anticoagulation strategies, thoroughly examining their impact on LVT regression and patient outcomes. Pharmacological interventions, with a focus on direct oral anticoagulants, emerge as promising alternatives; however, there is insufficient information on their efficiency and safety, especially in NICM population. In conclusion, this review highlights the complex nature of LVT, incorporating a range of etiopathogenic factors, diagnostic complexities, and evolving therapeutic approaches. It emphasizes the pressing need for ongoing research in this field.

Trial sequential analysis of efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists against left ventricular thrombus

Meta-analysis may increase the risk of random errors. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) has been developed to adjust for these random errors. We conducted TSA on the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in left ventricular thrombus (LVT) patients in order to estimate how many additional patients should be required to draw definite conclusions. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles directly comparing DOACs and VKAs for LVT in LV thrombus resolution, stroke, any thromboembolism, major bleeding, any bleeding, and all-cause death. TSA was conducted with a cumulative Z-curve, monitoring boundaries, and required sample size. A simulated trial was run and TSA estimated the sample sizes of trials needed to draw definite conclusions. Of 4749 articles, 25 studies were used for the analysis. TSA revealed the current sample size already demonstrated superiority of DOACs in LV thrombus resolution and stroke, and futility in any thromboembolism and all-cause death. Two other outcomes did not achieve the required sample size. The sample size of new trials needed to demonstrate the superiority of DOACs over VKAs was estimated 400 for any bleeding. Corresponding trials needed to demonstrate no significant differences could be estimated for major bleeding and any bleeding (n = 200 and n = 2000, respectively). Current results show that the sample size required to draw definite conclusions was not reached for two outcomes, and there was a risk of random error. Further randomized controlled trials with sample sizes estimated by TSA will work effectively to obtain valid conclusions.

Anticoagulation for Left Ventricle Thrombus-Case Series and Literature Review for Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Left ventricular thrombus is a known complication following acute myocardial infarction that can lead to systemic thromboembolism. To obviate the risk of thromboembolism, the patient needs anticoagulation in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy. However, combining antiplatelets with anticoagulants substantially increases the bleeding risk. Traditionally, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been the sheet anchor for anticoagulation in this scenario. The use of direct oral anticoagulants has significantly attenuated the bleeding risk associated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Furthermore, in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in conjunction with antiplatelets has been found to be noninferior in reducing ischemic events while significantly attenuating the bleeding compared with VKA. After initial case reports, multiple observational and nonrandomized studies have now safely and effectively utilized direct oral anticoagulants for anticoagulation in left ventricular thrombus. Here, we report a series of two cases presenting with left ventricular thrombus following acute myocardial infarction. In this case series, we try to address the issues concerning the choice and duration of anticoagulation in the case of postinfarct left ventricular thrombus. Pending the results of large randomized control trials, the judicious use of direct oral anticoagulant is warranted when taking into consideration the ischemic and bleeding profile in an individualized approach.

Left Ventricular Thrombosis: Current Perspective and Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is a serious risk factor for systemic embolism development. Despite the evident danger of this condition, current guidelines describe management of patients with this potentially fatal complication very briefly. LVT can complicate myocardial infarction where its incidence is around 10%, as well as various forms of cardiomyopathies and novel coronavirus infection. According to clinical guidelines vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) should be used as treatment of choice for thrombus resolution. However, experts point out that this therapy lacks necessary evidential base and bears certain difficulties because of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamical properties of VKAs. These drawbacks are absent in direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), the possibility of using which in LVT is being actively studied. As for now, published results of 3 randomised clinical trials have demonstrated similar safety and efficacy profiles of DOACs and VKAs. Similarly, the majority of retrospective cohort studies did not observe significant differences between two groups, where some of them have shown superiority of DOACs especially in terms of earlier thrombus resolution. Nevertheless, some studies have found DOACs ineffective and even potentially unsafe regarding systemic embolism. Existing data does not allow to form an unambiguous conclusion about the equivalence of DOACs and VKAs for LVT resolution. Large randomised clinical trials are needed to determine efficacy and safety of such treatment in these patients.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in the Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombi

Left ventricular thrombi form due to the presence of Virchow's triad in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. This complication increases the incidence of systemic embolization, hence anticoagulation is recommended to decrease this risk. Up to the present time, vitamin K antagonists are recommended by all societal guidelines for patients with left ventricular thrombi. Recently, several studies have investigated the role of different anticoagulants and yielded promising outcomes. This opinion article focuses on the evidence supporting vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with left ventricular thrombi.

Therapeutic efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists for left ventricular thrombus: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although several meta-analyses have compared efficacies of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for treatment of left ventricular thrombus (LVT), those meta-analyses included no single-arm studies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles investigating thrombus resolution, stroke, any thromboembolism, major bleeding, any bleeding, or all-cause death in LVT treated with VKAs or DOACs, and single-class meta-analyses were also included (PROSPERO database, CRD42021230849). Event rates were pooled using a random effects model. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore factors that may influence outcomes. 2,612 patients from 23 articles were included (VKAs: 2,004, DOACs: 608). There were no significant differences between VKAs and DOACs in the frequency of thrombus resolution (VKAs: 0.75 [95% confidence interval; 0.67 to 0.81], DOACs: 0.75 [0.67 to 0.82]), stroke (VKAs: 0.06 [0.04 to 0.10], DOACs: 0.02 [0.01 to 0.01]), any thromboembolism (VKAs: 0.08 [0.05 to 0.13], DOACs: 0.03 [0.01 to 0.10]), major bleeding (VKAs: 0.06 [0.04 to 0.09], DOACs: 0.03 [0.01 to 0.06]), any bleeding (VKAs: 0.08 [0.05 to 0.12], DOACs: 0.08 [0.06 to 0.10]), and all-cause death (VKAs: 0.07 [0.04 to 0.13], DOACs: 0.09 [0.05 to 0.16]). Meta-regression analysis revealed that increased duration of follow-up was associated with lower-rates of stroke (estimate: -0.040, p = 0.0495) with VKAs, but not with DOACs. There was significant publication bias for thrombus resolution, stroke, any thromboembolism, any bleeding, and all-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and adverse outcomes of therapy with DOACs and VKAs do not differ. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal anticoagulant strategy.