ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin for left ventricular thrombus: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is associated with substantial risk of embolism and mortality. Given the growing use of direct oral anticoagulants for LVT and evolving evidence, we conducted an updated, comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing their effectiveness and safety with vitamin K antagonists. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through the most recent search date for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing DOACs with VKAs in adults with imaging-confirmed LVT. Outcomes of interest included LVT resolution, systemic embolic events, all-cause mortality, bleeding events, and composite clinical outcomes. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Results: A total of 29 studies, comprising randomized controlled trials and observational cohorts, were included. Compared with VKAs, DOAC therapy was associated with a numerically higher likelihood of LVT resolution, although this did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98-1.14; I² = 48.2%). There was no significant difference in the risk of systemic embolic events between DOACs and VKAs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.03; I² = 5.5%). DOAC use was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64-1.09; I² = 5.5%); however, this finding was primarily driven by observational data. DOACs were also associated with a lower risk of bleeding events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.03; I² = 16.4%), although this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In this updated meta-analysis, DOACs were associated with a numerically higher rate of LVT resolution, although this did not reach statistical significance, and with lower rates of bleeding compared with VKAs, without an increased risk of systemic embolic events. Although a lower risk of all-cause mortality was observed, this finding was primarily driven by observational studies and should be interpreted with caution. These findings support DOACs as a reasonable and potentially safer alternative to VKAs for the management of LVT, while emphasizing the need for adequately powered randomized trials to confirm optimal anticoagulation strategies in this population. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251181379, PROSPERO CRD420251181379.
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.