ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Reversal of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) for Critical Bleeding or Urgent Procedures.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial hibernation: A new technique for protecting neural tissue and organs.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- When Atrial Fibrillation Meets Alcoholic Liver Cirrhosis: Can Direct Oral Anticoagulants Bridge the Therapeutic Gap?Biomedicines · 2026Review
- From empirical hemostasis to precision reversal: clinical challenges, technological innovations, and individualized strategies in anticoagulant-associated bleeding.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Anticoagulation Therapy and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study on Clinical Outcomes Using TriNetX.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has transformed the care of patients requiring prevention and treatment for thrombotic disease. Many randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of these agents and their comparative advantages over conventional anticoagulants such as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). While historically clinicians and patients raised questions about the reversal of DOAC-associated bleeding, federal approval in recent years of targeted DOAC reversal agents, along with adjunctive modalities, has given clinicians reliable pharmacologic options. Yet, optimal reversal strategies for bleeding at specific anatomic locations and in specific clinical scenarios remains uncertain. We present here a narrative review of the literature on the reversal of DOAC-associated bleeding or for urgent procedures. The totality of the reversal literature synthesized here yields several clear conclusions: (1) targeted DOAC reversal with specific agents demonstrates superior efficacy for both bleeding and urgent surgical indications when compared to the use of non-specific agents, such as prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs); (2) at the same time, high-quality data suggest potentially increased thrombotic risks, particularly for ischemic stroke, when using the specific targeted agent andexanet; (3) in all cases of life-threatening bleeding, timely reversal is of the essence; (4) in particular, there is growing consensus that DOAC-associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) should be reversed promptly, with a goal door-to-reversal time of 60 min; (5) future research will focus on optimizing clinical pathways for reversal to address "calls to action" from professional groups on this critical topic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.