Search

Background Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is not uncommon and pose a risk of systemic embolism, which can be mitigated by adequate anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used as alternatives to warfarin for anticoagulation, but their efficacy and safety profile has been debated. We aim to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of LVT. Methodology We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and LILCAS databases from inception to 14th August 2020 to identify relevant studies comparing warfarin and DOACs for LVT treatment and used the pooled data extracted from retrieved studies to perform a meta-analysis. Results We report pooled data on 1955 patients from 8 studies, with a mean age of 61 years and 59.7 years in warfarin and DOACs group, respectively. The pooled odds ratio for thrombus resolution was 1.11 (95% CI 0.51–2.39) on comparing warfarin to DOAC, but it did not reach a statistical significance (p = 0.76). The pooled risk ratio (RR) of stroke or systemic embolization and bleeding in patients treated with warfarin vs DOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64–1.68; p = 0.85), and 1.15 (95% CI 0.62–2.13; p = 0.57), respectively; with an overall RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.70–1.70; p = 0.48) for mortality. Conclusions DOACs appears to be non-inferior or at least as effective as warfarin in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus without any statistical difference in stroke or bleeding complications.

Introduction The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) challenges pharmacists worldwide. Alongside other specialized pharmacists, we re‐evaluated daily processes and therapies used to treat COVID‐19 patients within our institutions from a cardiovascular perspective and share what we have learned. Objectives To develop a collaborative approach for cardiology issues and concerns in the care of confirmed or suspected COVID‐19 patients by drawing on the experiences of cardiology pharmacists across the country. Methods On March 26, 2020, a conference call was convened composed of 24 cardiology residency‐trained pharmacists (23 actively practicing in cardiology and 1 in critical care) from 16 institutions across the United States to discuss cardiology issues each have encountered with COVID‐19 patients. Discussion centered around providing optimal pharmaceutical care while limiting staff exposure. Results The collaborative of pharmacists found for the ST‐elevation myocardial infarction patient, many institutions were diverting COVID‐19 rule‐out patients to their Emergency Department (ED). Thrombolytics are an alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) allowing for timely treatment of patients and decreased staff exposure. An emergency response grab and go kit includes initial drugs and airway equipment so the patient can be treated and the cart can be left outside the room. Cardiology pharmacists have developed policies and procedures to address monitoring of QT prolonging medications, the use of inhaled prostacyclins, and national drug shortages. Technology has allowed us to practice social distancing, while staying in close contact with our teams, patients, and colleagues and continuing to teach. Residents are engaged in unique decision‐making processes with their preceptors and assist as pharmacist extenders. Conclusion Cardiology pharmacists are in a unique position to work with other pharmacists and health care professionals to implement safe and effective practice changes during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Ongoing monitoring and adjustments are necessary in rapidly changing times. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.