| Title |
A meta-summary of case reports of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant use in patients with left ventricular thrombus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11239-018-1656-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aloysius Sheng-Ting Leow, Ching-Hui Sia, Benjamin Yong-Qiang Tan, Joshua Ping-Yun Loh |
| Abstract |
Left ventricular (LV) thrombus is commonly seen in patients with extensive anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The standard of care for LV thrombus is anticoagulation with warfarin. However, there has been an increasing trend of case reports using non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) for the treatment of LV thrombus. This study aimed to perform a meta-summary of the literature to characterise and evaluate the safety and feasibility of using NOAC in patients with LV thrombus. We searched for articles published in four electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar using an appropriate keyword/MeSH term search strategy. Twenty-four studies comprising 36 patients were included in the analysis. Rivaroxaban was used in majority of patients (47.2%), whilst Apixaban and Dabigatran were prescribed in 25.0% and 27.8% of patients respectively. The most commonly associated risk factor found was post-acute myocardial infarction in 15 patients (41.7%). LV thrombus resolution was met by most patients (87.9%), and the median duration of treatment to resolution was 30.0 days (IQR = 22.5-47.0). One non-fatal bleeding event (3.0%) and no embolic events were reported. The use of NOAC may have a role in the treatment of LV thrombus in selected patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate this treatment strategy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 67% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 25% |
| Unknown | 21 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 46% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 27 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2019.
All research outputs
#13,267,809
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#534
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,005
of 329,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.