Key result
DOACs cut hemorrhagic complications ~80% and lower mortality versus heparin in cancer-associated ischemic stroke.
Why the study?
Ischemic stroke is common and carries higher mortality in patients with systemic malignancy, but the optimal secondary stroke prevention strategy in this population remains unclear.
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reduce hemorrhagic complications and mortality compared to heparin products in patients with cancer-associated ischemic stroke?
Meta-Analysis (n=4,407)
Do direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reduce hemorrhagic complications and mortality compared to heparin products in patients with cancer-associated ischemic stroke?
DOACs appear to offer a safer profile with lower mortality and hemorrhagic complications compared to heparin products for secondary stroke prevention in cancer patients.
Supports preferring DOACs over heparin in cancer-associated stroke; extends meta-analytic evidence for safer secondary prevention.
Background: Ischemic stroke is common among patients with systemic malignancy, associated with increased risk of neurological deterioration and mortality compared to the general population. Optimal approach to secondary stroke prevention in cancer patients is unclear. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated available data on the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and heparin products for stroke prevention in this population. Methods: Using the Nested Knowledge AutoLit software, we performed PubMed search in September 2023 for articles reporting the use of antithrombotics for cancer-associated stroke. We conducted systematic review and meta-analysis. We also used a novel computational augmentation method to amplify the sample size to predict the effect before and after sample size augmentation and predict the results of further trials. Results: Among 253 potential studies screened, 7 were eligible for inclusion. 439 patients were treated with DOACs and 3968 with heparin products. Among patients treated with heparin, intracerebral hemorrhage (8.8 % vs 1.6, p=.02), overall hemorrhagic complications (17.9% vs 3.5%, p<.001), and mortality [28.1% vs 23.5%, p<.001] were respectively significantly higher than those reported among patients who received DOAC for cancer-associated ischemic stroke. No significant difference was observed in the rates of recurrent deep venous thrombosis, clinically significant hemorrhage, and clinical outcomes between the treatment groups. Similar results were shown with augmented meta-analysis. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows DOACs may have efficacy and safety profile similar to heparin products for recurrent stroke prevention in patients with cancer. Given the small number of studies and limited data, findings should be interpreted with caution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Essibayi et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Cancer-related ischemic stroke (n=4,407). Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Heparin products (LMWH and unfractionated heparin) was evaluated on Overall hemorrhagic complications (p=<0.001). Direct oral anticoagulants significantly reduced overall hemorrhagic complications (3.5% vs 17.9%) and mortality (23.5% vs 28.1%) compared to heparin products in patients with cancer-associated ischemic stroke.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on Anticoagulation in AF