Browne Ryan J, Hill Niall
Cardiology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, GBR.
School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, GBR.
Cureus. 2025 May 16;17(5):e84236. doi: 10.7759/cureus.84236. eCollection 2025 May.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves, specifically assessing the risks of ischemic stroke, thromboembolism, and major hemorrhage. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DOACs with warfarin, reporting on ischemic stroke, thromboembolism, and major hemorrhage as outcomes. Studies were excluded if they were observational, lacked relevant data, or did not meet the inclusion criteria specified and were extracted from PubMed, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Embase with the last search conducted in January 2025. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse variance method with a fixed-effect model to pool OR with 95% CI for each outcome. Two studies with a total of 1115 participants were included. The DOAC group showed a significantly higher risk of ischemic stroke (OR: 17.42, P=0.005) and thromboembolism (OR: 3.58, P=0.001) compared to warfarin. No significant difference was found in the risk of major hemorrhage (OR: 0.89, P=0.70). The limitations of this review include the small number of included studies and the substantial heterogeneity in the thromboembolism outcomes (Chi²=0.03). There is also a potential for publication bias, as studies with negative or inconclusive results may be underrepresented. Additionally, inconsistencies in how thromboembolism and hemorrhagic events were defined across studies could have affected the outcome assessments. As a result, this meta-analysis implies that clinicians should exercise caution when prescribing DOACs to high-risk populations. Future studies, particularly larger, high-quality RCTs, are needed to further investigate these findings and to explore specific patient subgroups. No financial support was received for this review. This review was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42024625615) on December 12, 2024, prior to study search and data extraction.
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较直接口服抗凝剂(DOACs)与华法林在机械心脏瓣膜患者中的安全性和有效性,特别评估缺血性卒中、血栓栓塞和大出血的风险。我们纳入了比较DOACs与华法林的随机对照试验(RCTs),并将缺血性卒中、血栓栓塞和大出血作为结局进行报告。如果研究为观察性研究、缺乏相关数据或不符合指定的纳入标准,则将其排除,这些研究从PubMed、Cochrane Central、ClinicalTrials.gov和Embase中提取,最后一次检索于2025年1月进行。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估纳入研究的质量。采用逆方差法和固定效应模型进行荟萃分析,以汇总每个结局的OR及95%CI。纳入了两项共1115名参与者的研究。与华法林相比,DOAC组缺血性卒中(OR:17.42,P = 0.005)和血栓栓塞(OR:3.58,P = 0.001)的风险显著更高。大出血风险无显著差异(OR:0.89,P = 0.70)。本评价的局限性包括纳入研究数量少以及血栓栓塞结局存在实质性异质性(Chi² = 0.03)。还存在发表偏倚的可能性,因为结果为阴性或不确定的研究可能未得到充分体现。此外,不同研究中血栓栓塞和出血事件定义的不一致可能影响结局评估。因此,本荟萃分析表明,临床医生在为高危人群开具DOACs时应谨慎。需要未来的研究,尤其是更大规模、高质量的RCTs,以进一步研究这些发现并探索特定患者亚组。本评价未获得资金支持。本评价于2024年12月12日在研究检索和数据提取之前在PROSPERO(ID CRD42024625615)注册。