ArticleEuropean heart journal open2026
Direct oral anticoagulants vs. warfarin for left ventricular thrombus.
Article in European heart journal open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Review of Efficacy and Safety.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Left ventricular (LV) thrombus carries a high risk of death and systemic embolism. While warfarin has been the standard treatment, evidence comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with warfarin in this setting remains limited. This study aimed to compare real-world, risk-adjusted outcomes of DOAC vs. warfarin use in patients with LV thrombus. Methods and results: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the TriNetX research network database. Adults (≥18 years) with echocardiographically confirmed LV thrombus from 2016 to 2022 were included. Patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter, venous thromboembolism, end-stage renal disease, mechanical/bioprosthetic valves, or therapy switch during follow-up were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance covariates. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and stroke/transient ischaemic attack at 30 days and 1 year. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding and LV thrombus resolution. Of 2488 eligible patients (DOAC: 950; warfarin: 1538), 945 matched pairs were analysed with all baseline covariates balanced. In the DOAC group, 74% received apixaban and 26% rivaroxaban. At 30 days and 1 year, the composite outcome did not differ significantly between DOAC and warfarin [13.3% vs. 15%; matched hazard ratio (HR): 0.90, Conclusion: In a large propensity-matched cohort, DOACs and warfarin demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety for LV thrombus management, supporting DOACs as a reasonable alternative.
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.