SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Direct oral anticoagulants or warfarin in left ventricular thrombus: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2026. 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
Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is a significant complication following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), posing substantial risks of stroke and systemic embolism. Warfarin remains the traditional standard for anticoagulation, but direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as practical alternatives despite limited comparative evidence. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin in patients with LVT. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for RCTs comparing DOACs and warfarin in patients with LVT. Outcomes of interest included thrombus resolution rates at 1- and 3-month follow-up and safety outcomes, including major bleeding, stroke/systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. We included 7 RCTs comprising 554 patients, of whom 319 received DOACs. No significant differences were found between DOACs and warfarin regarding LVT resolution at 1 month (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 0.62–4.60; p = 0.31; I²=69%) or 3 months (OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.82–2.37; p = 0.22; I²=0%). Secondary outcomes, including major bleeding (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12–2.12), stroke/systemic embolism (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.10–4.64), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.31–2.40), were also similar between groups. In patients with LVT, DOACs demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to warfarin, offering practical advantages such as simplified management. These findings support DOACs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin for treating LVT. However, further large-scale trials using advanced imaging and standardized anticoagulation protocols are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41359218What 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.