ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2025
Safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants in fragile patients with venous thromboembolism: a retrospective cohort observational study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personalized Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Evolving treatment strategies for deep venous thrombosis: long-term outcomes of pharmacomechanical thrombectomy with exploratory analysis of a cancer-associated subgroup in a retrospective cohort study.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is challenging in fragile patients, including those with cancer, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and old age. We aimed to compare the safety of DOACs in terms of bleeding complications in these patients. Methods: Using hospital data from 2013 to 2019, we compared the risk of bleeding and major bleeding, including intracranial bleeding, any bleeding requiring transfusion, and all-cause bleeding, in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) who were naïve to DOAC (n = 12,369) and warfarin (n = 4,123). Hazard ratios (HRs) for the clinical outcomes were analyzed using Cox regression analysis, with warfarin as a reference. Results: The study included 4,078 eligible patients, predominantly female (54.1%), with a mean age of 62.5 years. DOACs were the primary treatment in 74.1% of the patients. DOAC treatment was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared to warfarin (HR, 0.799; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.707-0.904). Although rates of recurrent VTE or major bleeding did not significantly differ between the groups, DOAC-treated patients had lower bleeding risk (HR, 0.562; 95% CI, 0.393-0.805; P = 0.002). The individual DOAC drugs did not differ significantly in terms of composite outcomes, recurrence, or bleeding events. Conclusion: DOAC showed comparable outcomes with warfarin in the fragile patient population.
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.