ReviewAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2025
Direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in cancer-related surgeries: A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes.
Review in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation in East Asian individuals following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- The evolution of anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis.Anaesthesia and intensive care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-operative venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a concern following cancer-related surgeries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis after cancer-related surgeries. Methods: We systematically searched databases for studies comparing DOACs to LMWH for post-operative thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related surgeries. Primary outcomes were VTE incidence and bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates. Subgroup analyses examined DOAC type, cancer type, and follow-up duration. A random-effects model calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Analysis included 16 studies with 6400 participants in the DOAC group (mean age 62.05 years, 28.15 % male) and 5801 participants in the LMWH group (mean age 60.78 years, 34.65 % male). DOACs were non-inferior to LMWH for VTE prevention (RR = 0.81, 95 % CI 0.56 to 1.16) with no significant difference in bleeding rates (RR = 0.70, 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.18). Mortality and hospitalization rates were similar between groups. Subgroup analyses suggested possible VTE reduction with DOACs in urological cancer surgeries (RR = 0.52, 95 % CI 0.44 to 0.61) and lower bleeding trends with Apixaban (RR = 0.64, 95 % CI 0.44 to 0.94). Conclusions: DOACs appear non-inferior to LMWH for post-operative thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related surgeries, with comparable safety. The superior VTE prevention in urological cancer surgeries and Apixaban's favorable safety profile warrant further investigation. Moreover, additional research is necessary to clarify the roles of specific DOACs and optimal prophylaxis strategies across various cancer types and surgical procedures.
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.