Safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus traditional anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. For decades, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and vitamin K-antagonists have been the gold standard of anticoagulation for VTE. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that can be administered in fixed doses, without laboratory monitoring and dose adjustment have revolutionized anticoagulation management in VTE. Here, we report on recent evidence regarding the safety of DOACs compared to traditional anticoagulants in surgical and medical prophylaxis as well as in acute and extended treatments of VTE. Additionally, we provide data on special situations such as elderly, cancer and renal impairment patients. Regarding antithrombotic prophylaxis, data are lacking on DOAC use in general surgical patients, while DOACs appear to be more effective than and as safe as LMWHs in VTE prophylaxis for major orthopedic surgical patients. Whether a medically ill patient may benefit from extended VTE prophylaxis remains unclear. In fact, in these patients, DOACs showed an increased risk of bleeding compared to conventional therapy. In the acute treatment of VTE, DOACs were non-inferior and probably safer than conventional anticoagulation therapy while in the extended VTE treatment DOACs were more effective than placebo or aspirin with a comparable risk of major bleeding. These favorable results were also confirmed in elderly, cancer and renal impairment patients. However, further investigations are needed in order to generalize the safe use of DOACs in these specific subgroups of patients.

Keywords: Anticoagulation; Direct oral anticoagulants; Low-molecular weight heparin; Thromboprophylaxis; Venous thromboembolism; Vitamin K-antagonists.