-
Ibrain 2022Whether restarting anticoagulation (RA) treatment after intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is still controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Review)
Review
Whether restarting anticoagulation (RA) treatment after intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is still controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the relationship between anticoagulation after ICH with the recurrence of hemorrhagic events, ischemic events, and long-term mortality. Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to November 2020. We searched the published medical literature to ensure cohort studies involving ICH associated with anticoagulation in adults. Primary outcomes were long-term mortality, hemorrhagic events, and ischemic events (myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, or systemic embolization). We concluded seven retrospective cohorts, including 1876 intracranial hemorrhage patients with indications of anticoagulation. The ratio of the anticoagulant restart was 35.3% (664n). RA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of recurrent ischemic events (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19% to 0.45%, = 0.97) and death events (pooled OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40%-0.79%, = 0.27). There is no evidence that early recovery of anticoagulation (within 2 weeks or 1 month) is associated with the occurrence of hemorrhagic events (within 2 weeks: pooled OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.3-2.12, = 0.52 vs. within 1 month: pooled OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.77-1.68, = 0.82). Based on these, recovery of anticoagulation after ICH is beneficial for long-term mortality and recurrence of ischemic events. The meta-analysis showed a resumption of oral anticoagulation within 2 weeks or 1 month in patients who had a cerebral hemorrhage was beneficial and did not increase the risk of hemorrhagic events and reduced the occurrence of ischemic and fatal endpoint events.
PubMed: 37786745
DOI: 10.1002/ibra.12060 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021There is controversy over whether use of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) associates with increased hemorrhage risk compared with non-NOAC. Meanwhile, determining which... (Review)
Review
There is controversy over whether use of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) associates with increased hemorrhage risk compared with non-NOAC. Meanwhile, determining which NOAC to use remains unclear. We aimed to summarize the evidence about NOACs in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention for patients with total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA). We searched RCTs assessing NOACs for VTE prophylaxis in adults undergoing THA and TKA in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane up to May 2021. Primary outcomes were VTE [included deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)], major VTE, and major bleeding. The rank probabilities of each treatment were summarized by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve area (SUCRA). 25 RCTs with 42,994 patients were included. Compared with non-NOAC, NOACs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55-0.84) and major VTE (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.35-0.76). Additionally, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban but not dabigatran and betrixaban, did confer a higher efficacy compared with non-NOAC. None of the individual NOACs increased the risk of bleeding, while apixaban and betrixaban were even associated with a decreased risk of bleeding. In the comparison of different NOACs, rivaroxaban was associated with the greatest benefits in VTE (SUCRA = 79.6), DVT (SUCRA = 88.8), and major VTE (SUCRA = 89.9) prevention. Furthermore, subgroup analysis confirmed that NOACs associated with a higher efficacy tendency in patients with follow-up duration <60 days than follow-up duration ≥60 days. Evidence suggests that NOACs exert more benefits on VTE prophylaxis, and none of the individual NOACs increased hemorrhage compared with non-NOAC. Among various NOACs, rivaroxaban is recommended in patients with lower bleeding risk, and apixaban is recommended in patients with higher bleeding risk. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021266890].
PubMed: 35111051
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.775126 -
Journal of the American Heart... Apr 2024Concomitant atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease is common and associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Although oral anticoagulants have been well... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Concomitant atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease is common and associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Although oral anticoagulants have been well established to prevent thromboembolism, the applicability in patients under long-term dialysis remains debatable. The study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in the dialysis-dependent population.
METHODS AND RESULTS
An updated network meta-analysis based on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies published up to December 2022 were included. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban 2.5/5 mg twice daily), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and no anticoagulation were compared on safety and efficacy outcomes. The outcomes of interest were major bleeding, thromboembolism, and all-cause death. A total of 42 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials, with 185 864 subjects were pooled. VKAs were associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than either no anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61) or DOACs (DOACs versus VKAs; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.84]). For the prevention of thromboembolism, the efficacies of VKAs, DOACs, and no anticoagulation were equivalent. Nevertheless, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with fewer embolic events. There were no differences in all-cause death with the administration of VKAs, DOACs, or no anticoagulation.
CONCLUSIONS
For dialysis-dependent populations, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with better efficacy, while dabigatran and apixaban demonstrated better safety. No anticoagulation was a noninferior alterative, and VKAs were associated with the worst outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Rivaroxaban; Dabigatran; Stroke; Network Meta-Analysis; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Fibrinolytic Agents; Administration, Oral; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Thromboembolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38606775
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.034176 -
Clinical Cardiology Jul 2021Several observational studies have compared the effectiveness and safety outcomes between nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in atrial fibrillation patients with previous stroke or intracranial hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Several observational studies have compared the effectiveness and safety outcomes between nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of either stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) or intracranial hemorrhage. Therefore, our current meta-analysis aimed to address this issue. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were systematically searched until December 2020 for all relevant observational studies. We applied a random-effects model to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for this meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies were included. Among patients with a history of stroke/TIA, the use of NOACs versus VKAs was associated with decreased risks of stroke (HR, 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97), systemic embolism (HR, 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.87), all-cause death (HR, 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94), major bleeding (HR, 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77). Among patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage, the use of NOACs versus VKAs was associated with reduced risks of stroke (HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.95), all-cause death (HR, 0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.94), and intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.84). Compared with VKAs, the use of NOACs exhibited superior efficacy and safety outcomes in AF patients with previous stroke/TIA, and the use of NOACs was associated with reduced risks of stroke, all-cause death, and intracranial hemorrhage in patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Stroke; Vitamin K
PubMed: 34013988
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23647 -
Clinical Cardiology May 2020The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to invasive procedures or surgery. Heparin bridging was associated with lower risks of thromboembolism and bleeding compared to non-bridging. PubMed, Ovid and Elsevier, and Cochrane Library (2000-2016) were searched for English-language studies. Studies comparing interrupted anticoagulation with or without bridging and continuous oral anticoagulation in patients at moderate-to-high thromboembolic risk before invasive procedures were included. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and bleeding events. Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models were used to analyze the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Eighteen studies (six randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included (N = 23 364). There was no difference in thromboembolic risk between bridged and non-bridged patients (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.61-2.58; RCTs: RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.23-2.24; cohorts: RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63-3.37). However, bridging anticoagulation was associated with higher risk of overall bleeding (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 2.00-4.01; RCTs: RR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.99-5.09; cohorts: RR: 3.09, 95% CI: 2.07-4.62) and major bleeding (RR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.78-5.06; RCTs: RR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.29-4.76; cohorts: RR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.65-6.32). Bridging anticoagulation was associated with increased bleeding risk compared to non-bridging. Thromboembolism risk was similar between two strategies. Our results do not support routine use of bridging during anticoagulation interruption.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Heparin; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31944351
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23336 -
BMC Family Practice Dec 2021Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of developing a stroke by 20%. AF related strokes are associated with greater morbidity. Historically, warfarin was the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of developing a stroke by 20%. AF related strokes are associated with greater morbidity. Historically, warfarin was the anticoagulant of choice for stroke prevention in patients with AF but lately patients are being switched or started on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs are promoted as safer alternatives to warfarin and it is expected that they will be associated with fewer challenges both for patients and healthcare professionals. This systematic narrative review aimed to explore perspectives of patients and professionals on medicines optimisation of oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists and DOACs in atrial fibrillation.
METHODS
Prospero registration CRD42018091591. Systematic searches undertaken of research studies (qualitative and quantitative), published February 2018 to November 2020 from several databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Via Ovid, CINHAL via Ebsco, and PubMED via NCBI) following PRISMA methodology. Data were organised using Covidence software. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and synthesized the findings (thematic analysis approach).
RESULTS
Thirty-four studies were included. Studies were critically appraised using established critical appraisal tools (Qualsyst) and a risk of bias was assigned. Clinicians considered old age and the associated complexities such as co-morbidities and the increased potential for bleeding as potential barriers to optimising anticoagulation. Whereas patients' health and medication beliefs influenced adherence. Notably, structured patient support was important in enhancing safety and effective anticoagulation. For both patients and clinicians, confidence and experience of safe anticoagulation was influenced by the presence of co-morbidities, poor knowledge and understanding of AF and the purpose of anticoagulation.
CONCLUSION
Age, complex multimorbidity and polypharmacy influence prescribing, with DOACs being perceived to be safer than warfarin. This systematic narrative review suggests that interventions are needed to support patient self-management. There are residual anxieties associated with long term anticoagulation in the context of complexities.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Not applicable.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Hemorrhage; Humans; Stroke; Warfarin
PubMed: 34937557
DOI: 10.1186/s12875-021-01590-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening condition in which a clot can migrate from the deep veins, most commonly in the leg, to the lungs. Conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening condition in which a clot can migrate from the deep veins, most commonly in the leg, to the lungs. Conventional treatment of PE used unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Recently, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors. DOACs have characteristics that may be favourable to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, no need for frequent monitoring or re-dosing, and few known drug interactions. This review reports the efficacy and safety of these drugs in the long-term treatment of PE (minimum duration of three months). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of PE.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 March 2022. We checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a PE confirmed by standard imaging techniques were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with a conventional anticoagulant or compared with each other for the long-term treatment of PE (minimum duration three months).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent PE, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five additional RCTs with 1484 participants for this update. Together with the previously included trials, we have included ten RCTs with a total of 13,073 participants. Two studies investigated an oral DTI (dabigatran) and eight studies investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (three rivaroxaban, three apixaban, and two edoxaban). The studies were of good methodological quality overall. Meta-analysis showed no clear difference in the efficacy and safety of oral DTI compared with conventional anticoagulation in preventing recurrent PE (odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 2.04; 2 studies, 1602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.66; 2 studies, 1602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), DVT (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.13; 2 studies, 1602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and major bleeding (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.68; 2 studies, 1527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence by one level for imprecision due to the low number of events. There was also no clear difference between the oral factor Xa inhibitors and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent PE (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29; 3 studies, 8186 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 8 studies, 11,416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), DVT (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25; 2 studies, 8151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70; 1 study, 4817 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and major bleeding (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.41; 8 studies, 11,447 participants; low-certainty evidence); the heterogeneity for major bleeding was significant (I = 79%). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate and low because of imprecision due to the low number of events and inconsistency due to clinical heterogeneity. None of the included studies measured health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence shows there is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent PE, recurrent VTE, DVT, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. The certainty of evidence was moderate or low. Future large clinical trials are required to identify if individual drugs differ in effectiveness and bleeding risk, and to explore effect differences in subgroups, including people with cancer and obesity.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Antithrombins; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pulmonary Embolism; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37057837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010957.pub3 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Aug 2017It is unclear if the risk of intraocular bleeding with novel oral anticoagulants differs compared with warfarin. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
It is unclear if the risk of intraocular bleeding with novel oral anticoagulants differs compared with warfarin.
OBJECTIVE
To characterize the risk of intraocular bleeding with novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken in an academic medical setting. MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials published up until August 2016. This search was supplemented by manual bibliography searches of identified trials and other review articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were phase 3 randomized clinical trials, enrolled patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism, compared a novel oral anticoagulant (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) with warfarin, and recorded event data on intraocular bleeding. Data on intraocular bleeding were pooled using inverse-variance, weighted, fixed-effects meta-analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing quality. Independent extraction was performed by 2 investigators.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Intraocular bleeding events and associated risk ratio for novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin.
RESULTS
Twelve trials investigating 102 627 patients were included. Randomization to novel oral anticoagulants was associated with a 22% relative reduction in intraocular bleeding compared with warfarin (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99). There was no significant heterogeneity observed (I2 = 4.8%, P = .40). Comparably lower risks of intraocular bleeding with novel oral anticoagulants were seen in subgroup analyses, with no significant difference according to the indication for anticoagulation (P for heterogeneity = .49) or the novel oral anticoagulant type (P for heterogeneity = .15). Summary estimates did not differ materially when random-effects meta-analytic techniques were used.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These results suggest that novel oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of intraocular bleeding by approximately one-fifth compared with warfarin. Similar benefits were seen in both patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Our data have particular relevance for patients at higher risk of spontaneous retinal and subretinal bleeding. These findings may also have important implications in the perioperative period, in which the use of novel oral anticoagulants may be superior. Future studies are required to better characterize the optimal management of patients with both ophthalmic disease and cardiovascular comorbidities requiring anticoagulation.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Dabigatran; Eye Hemorrhage; Humans; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Rivaroxaban; Thiazoles; Venous Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 28687831
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.2199 -
Circulation Jul 2015Evidence regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the elderly, particularly bleeding risks, is unclear despite the presence of greater comorbidities,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and Harms of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Elderly for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation and Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Evidence regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the elderly, particularly bleeding risks, is unclear despite the presence of greater comorbidities, polypharmacy, and altered pharmacokinetics in this age group.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of DOACs (dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban) for efficacy and bleeding outcomes in comparison with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in elderly participants (aged ≥75 years) treated for acute venous thromboembolism or stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 11 reported data specifically for elderly participants. The efficacy in managing thrombotic risks for each DOAC was similar or superior to VKA in elderly patients. A nonsignificantly higher risk of major bleeding than with VKA was observed with dabigatran 150 mg (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.44) but not with the 110-mg dose. Significantly higher gastrointestinal bleeding risks with dabigatran 150 mg (1.78, 1.35-2.35) and dabigatran 110 mg (1.40, 1.04-1.90) and lower intracranial bleeding risks than VKA for dabigatran 150 mg (0.43, 0.26-0.72) and dabigatran 110 mg (0.36, 0.22-0.61) were also observed. A significantly lower major bleeding risk in comparison with VKA was observed for apixaban (0.63, 0.51-0.77), edoxaban 60 mg (0.81, 0.67-0.98), and 30 mg (0.46, 0.38-0.57), whereas rivaroxaban showed similar risks.
CONCLUSIONS
DOACs demonstrated at least equal efficacy to VKA in managing thrombotic risks in the elderly, but bleeding patterns were distinct. In particular, dabigatran was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding than VKA. Insufficient published data for apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban indicate that further work is needed to clarify the bleeding risks of these DOACs in the elderly.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. Unique identifier: PROSPERO CRD42014007171/.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Hemorrhage; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 25995317
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013267 -
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... Mar 2023The recommendations for the management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in oral surgery are inconsistent. The present review evaluated whether DOACs increase the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The recommendations for the management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in oral surgery are inconsistent. The present review evaluated whether DOACs increase the risk of bleeding during oral surgery and postoperative complications.
STUDY DESIGN
The patients undergoing oral surgery and receiving a DOAC were compared with the patients receiving a DOAC different from the exposure, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), or no anticoagulant. Three electronic databases were searched for eligible clinical trials and systematic reviews. The risk of bias was assessed, data were extracted, a meta-analysis was done, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations certainty-of-evidence ratings were determined.
RESULTS
Three clinical trials comparing patients receiving DOAC medication with patients on a VKA were eligible. A meta-analysis of bleeding 7 days postoperatively detected no significant differences between patients continuing DOAC or VKA medication during and after surgery. All of the point estimates favored uninterrupted DOAC over VKA therapy. Tranexamic acid was topically administered to some patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on an interpreted trend among 3 studies with mixed patient populations, the risk of bleeding during the first 7 postoperative days may be lower for patients on uninterrupted DOAC than VKA therapy (⨁⨁⭘⭘), but the effect size of the risk is unclear. 80 of 274 included patients experienced postoperative bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Oral Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Tranexamic Acid; Vitamin K
PubMed: 36100547
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2022.07.003