Why the study?
Evidence for DOACs in unusual-site venous thromboembolism is limited to small randomized trials, yet they are increasingly used in clinical practice.
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) improve outcomes in patients with unusual-site venous thromboembolism?
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) improve outcomes in patients with unusual-site venous thromboembolism?
This narrative review synthesizes the limited but growing evidence base to provide practical guidance on using DOACs for unusual-site venous thromboembolism.
May inform DOAC use in atypical-site thrombosis; leaves open need for dedicated RCTs.
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are currently the preferred oral anticoagulant treatment for most of the patients with deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremities and/or pulmonary embolism. DOACs have several advantages over vitamin K antagonists, such as availability of fixed dosages, fewer drug interactions, faster onset of action, shorter half-life, and lower risk of major and intracranial bleeding. Although the evidence on the use of DOACs in patients with unusual-site venous thromboembolism (VTE) is limited to a few, small randomized controlled trials, these drugs are increasingly used in clinical practice, and several observational cohort studies have been published recently. This narrative review will describe the latest evidence for the use of the DOACs in patients with thrombosis in atypical locations (splanchnic, cerebral, upper extremity, ovarian, and renal vein thrombosis) and will provide some practical advice for their use in patients with unusual-site VTE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riva et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: