ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2018
Non-recommended dosing of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism is related to an increased rate of adverse events.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sex as a prognostic factor for mortality in adults with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Predictors of use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism: Findings from the Registro Informatizado Enfermedad Tromboembólica registry.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Available Bleeding Scoring Systems Poorly Predict Major Bleeding in the Acute Phase of Pulmonary Embolism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Patient-guided modifications of oral anticoagulant drug intake during Ramadan fasting: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dose adjustment of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is not required in the setting of acute PE treatment according to the manufacturer's labelling, beyond the contraindication in severe renal insufficiency. We designed a prospective, multicenter cohort study to investigate the impact of prescription of non-recommended DOAC doses on 6-month adverse events. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). In total, among 656 patients discharged with DOACs between 09/2012 and 10/2016, 28 (4.3%) were not treated with a recommended DOAC dose. All the non-recommended DOAC dose prescriptions were under-dosed according to the drug labelling. After multivariate adjustment, age > 70 years, a history of coronary artery disease, creatinine clearance < 50 mL/min and concomitant aspirin therapy were independently associated with non-recommended DOAC dose prescription (C-statistic: 0.82; Hosmer Lemeshow test: 0.50). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 7/28 patients (25.0%) in the non-recommended dose group and in 38/628 patients (6.1%) in the recommended dose group, yielding a relative risk of 3.19 in the non-recommended dose group (95% CI 1.16-8.70; p < 0.001). The higher primary endpoint rate observed in the non-recommended dose group was driven by a significantly higher rate of major bleeding (7.1 vs. 1.4%; p = 0.008), with a non-significant trend toward a higher rate of death (7.1 vs. 2.2%; p = 0.23), recurrent VTE (3.6 vs. 1.4%; p = 0.31), and CTEPH (7.1 vs. 1.6%; p = 0.32). In conclusion, empiric dose reduction of DOACs was associated with 6-month adverse events in our real-life registry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29869319What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.