SynthesisOpen heart2025
Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with a left ventricular thrombus: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular (LV) thrombus is a complication of myocardial infarction and dilated cardiomyopathy and is associated with a high thromboembolic risk. Although warfarin has traditionally been used, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer a more convenient alternative. With the addition of the RIVAWAR trial, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared with warfarin in patients with LV thrombus.
methodsA systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov) from inception to April 2025 identified randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with warfarin for the treatment of LV thrombus. The main outcome of interest was thrombus resolution at 3 months. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects models.
resultsSeven RCTs comprising 554 patients were included. Non-contrast transthoracic echocardiography was used for LV thrombus assessment in all RCTs. There was no difference between DOACs and warfarin in thrombus resolution at 3 months (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.54), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.31), stroke/systemic embolism (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.12 to 4.68), rehospitalisation (RR 1.36; 95% CI 0.47 to 3.94) or major bleeding (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.48). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results.
conclusionsDOACs demonstrated similar efficacy and safety to warfarin for LV thrombus management in this meta-analysis, supporting their use for the treatment of LV thrombus. However, large-scale RCTs with longer follow-up periods and using diagnostic modalities with higher sensitivity and specificity for detecting LV thrombus resolution are warranted to confirm these findings and clarify long-term outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251023513.
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.