Key result
DOACs show comparable mortality and stroke rates versus warfarin.
Why the study?
Warfarin has been standard treatment for left ventricular thrombus, but evidence comparing direct oral anticoagulants with warfarin in this setting remains limited.
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reduce the composite of all-cause mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack compared to warfarin in adults with left ventricular thrombus?
Cohort (n=1,890)
Yes
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reduce the composite of all-cause mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack compared to warfarin in adults with left ventricular thrombus?
DOACs demonstrate comparable effectiveness and safety to warfarin for the management of left ventricular thrombus, supporting their use as a reasonable alternative to standard warfarin therapy.
Comparable outcomes with DOACs versus warfarin; leaves open need for randomized trials to confirm.
Aims Left ventricular (LV) thrombus carries a high risk of death and systemic embolism. While warfarin has been the standard treatment, evidence comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with warfarin in this setting remains limited. This study aimed to compare real-world, risk-adjusted outcomes of DOAC vs. warfarin use in patients with LV thrombus. Methods and results We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the TriNetX research network database. Adults (≥18 years) with echocardiographically confirmed LV thrombus from 2016 to 2022 were included. Patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter, venous thromboembolism, end-stage renal disease, mechanical/bioprosthetic valves, or therapy switch during follow-up were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance covariates. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack at 30 days and 1 year. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding and LV thrombus resolution. Of 2488 eligible patients (DOAC: 950; warfarin: 1538), 945 matched pairs were analysed with all baseline covariates balanced. In the DOAC group, 74% received apixaban and 26% rivaroxaban. At 30 days and 1 year, the composite outcome did not differ significantly between DOAC and warfarin [13.3% vs. 15%; matched hazard ratio (HR): 0.90, P = 0.41, and 23.8% vs. 26.7%; matched HR: 0.93, P = 0.46, respectively]. Major bleeding rates were similar at 30 days and 1 year (1.18% vs. 1.54%; matched HR: 0.77, P = 0.54, and 4.8% vs. 4.7%; matched HR: 1.13, P = 0.58, respectively). Thrombus resolution at 6 months occurred in ∼81% of patients with follow-up imaging, with no difference by treatment group. Conclusion In a large propensity-matched cohort, DOACs and warfarin demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety for LV thrombus management, supporting DOACs as a reasonable alternative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kassab et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Left ventricular thrombus (n=1,890). Direct oral anticoagulants vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack at 1 year (HR 0.93, p=0.46). In patients with left ventricular thrombus, DOACs were associated with a similar 1-year risk of all-cause mortality and stroke or TIA compared to warfarin (23.8% vs. 26.7%; HR 0.93, P=0.46).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: