Key result
DOACs match warfarin for left ventricular thrombus resolution after myocardial infarction.
Why the study?
Although left ventricular thrombus remains a clinically significant complication following acute myocardial infarction, the best treatment remains unclear given the limitations of warfarin.
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) improve thrombus resolution and clinical outcomes compared with warfarin in adult patients with left ventricular thrombus following myocardial infarction?
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) improve thrombus resolution and clinical outcomes compared with warfarin in adult patients with left ventricular thrombus following myocardial infarction?
Relative Risk: 1.02 (95% CI 0.98–1.06)
DOACs appear to be a comparable and potentially safer alternative to warfarin for the treatment of left ventricular thrombus following myocardial infarction, though definitive large-scale randomized trials are still needed.
Supports DOAC consideration as warfarin alternative for post-MI LV thrombus; leaves open need for confirmatory RCTs.
Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) remains a clinically significant complication following acute myocardial infarction (MI). Although its incidence has declined in the era of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), the best treatment remains unclear. For decades, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin have been the mainstay of therapy, supported by guidelines recommendations. However, the limitations of warfarin, including a narrow therapeutic range, the need for frequent monitoring, and food/drug interactions, have spurred interest in direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This review summarizes the available evidence on anticoagulation strategies for LVT after MI, focusing on observational studies and recent randomized controlled trials. A total of 12 studies were included in this review: 9 retrospective cohorts and 3 randomized controlled trials. Patient populations ranged from small single-center cohorts to large multicenter registries. DOACs, compared with warfarin, were associated with a higher rate of thrombus resolution, a lower rate of stroke and systemic embolism, and a similar mortality. The usage of DOACs marginally reduced the rate of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The current evidence indicates that DOACs may offer comparable efficacy and potentially improved safety relative to warfarin, although most randomized trials remain small and underpowered for definitive conclusions. Larger, adequately powered studies are still required before DOACs can be routinely considered equivalent alternatives. The RIVAWAR randomized trial provides the strongest evidence to date regarding the use of DOACs in LVT after MI, but further large-scale randomized studies are required to establish definitive guidance. Until then, anticoagulation therapy including DOACs should be individualized, balancing the thromboembolic risk, bleeding risk, and practical considerations of anticoagulant use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Folman et al. (2025) conducted a review in Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) following myocardial infarction (MI) (n=15,123). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Vitamin K antagonists (warfarin) was evaluated on Thrombus resolution (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.06). DOACs demonstrated comparable efficacy to warfarin for left ventricular thrombus resolution after myocardial infarction with a pooled RR of 1.02 (95% CI 0.98-1.06).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: