Key result
DOACs showed no significant difference in VTE rates versus LMWHs, while rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE risk compared to placebo (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.95) without increasing bleeding.
Why the study?
Traditional LMWHs are standard for VTE prophylaxis after cancer surgery but subcutaneous administration often causes suboptimal adherence, prompting exploration of DOACs as convenient alternatives.
Do DOACs (apixaban and rivaroxaban) prevent VTE as safely and effectively as LMWHs or placebo in cancer patients undergoing oncologic surgery?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,600)
Do DOACs (apixaban and rivaroxaban) prevent VTE as safely and effectively as LMWHs or placebo in cancer patients undergoing oncologic surgery?
Relative Risk: 0.27 (95% CI 0.08–0.95)
DOACs (apixaban and rivaroxaban) appear to be safe and efficacious alternatives to LMWHs for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer surgery, offering the convenience of oral administration without increasing bleeding risk.
May support oral DOACs for VTE prophylaxis after cancer surgery; leaves optimal agent and duration open pending larger trials.
Background/Objectives: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major risk for cancer patients undergoing surgery due to hypercoagulability and surgical stress. Traditional low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used as the standard of care for VTE prophylaxis, but subcutaneous administration often leads to suboptimal patient adherence. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are being explored as more convenient and effective alternatives. This study employed a network meta-analysis approach to comparatively assess the safety and efficacy of DOACS and LMWH in preventing VTE among cancer patients undergoing oncologic surgery. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted. The search strategy included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from databases such as CLINICALTRIAL.GOV, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. The search encompassed studies published up to October 2023 and compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs with LMWHs in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of VTE, and the secondary outcomes included the incidences of major bleeding events (MB) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Results: A network meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1600 cancer surgery patients was conducted. No statistically significant differences in VTE rates were observed between DOACs and LMWHs. While rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 30 days significantly reduced VTE risk compared to placebo (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08–0.95), no significant differences were found in major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding risks between DOACs and LMWH or placebo. Conclusions: This network meta-analysis provides evidence supporting the use of DOACs, specifically apixaban and rivaroxaban, as safe and efficacious alternatives to LMWHs for VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients undergoing surgery. The oral administration and reduced monitoring requirements associated with DOACs address the limitations inherent to LMWHs, potentially improving patient adherence. These findings emphasize the need for additional head-to-head trials and long-term studies further to solidify their role in this high-risk patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shahbar et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer surgery (n=1,600). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) or placebo was evaluated on Incidence of VTE (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.95). DOACs showed no significant difference in VTE rates versus LMWHs, while rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE risk compared to placebo (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.95) without increasing bleeding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: