SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2026
Anticoagulation in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is an uncommon complication of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), resulting in elevated pulmonary pressure and higher risk of PE recurrence. Therefore, lifelong anticoagulant therapy is mandatory in patients diagnosed with this condition. Despite anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) has always represented the standard of care in this setting, the spread of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) raised the question of the potential applicability of their use also in CTEPH. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies focusing on patients with CTEPH treated with either VKAs or DOACs. Key clinical outcomes as venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, bleedings (major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage), and mortality were evaluated. Overall, 12 studies including 4071 patients were selected in the quantitative analysis, 10 had an observational design. We found no difference between DOACs and VKAs for VTE recurrence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.40-2.43), overall bleedings (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45-1.32), and all-cause death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30-1.14). These results were consistent for the aforementioned outcomes also in a sensitivity analysis pooling the results of RCTs and prospective studies only (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.24-2.38; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.22-1.56; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.01-74.68; respectively). DOACs appear to be as effective and safe as VKAs for patients with CTEPH, therefore their use may be considered in the absence of clinical contraindications. Larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to further confirm our findings.
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.