To evaluate major bleeding in cirrhosis with use of traditional anticoagulation or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), using a standardized definition. Anticoagulation in patients with cirrhosis is often a clinical conundrum for providers as the necessary balance between thrombotic and bleeding risk is complicated by end organ damage. Recent meta-analyses have sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with liver disease. These recent analyses are limited by various bleeding definitions, broad inclusion criteria, and few indications for anticoagulation. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis using a validated definition for major bleeding and compare rates between traditional anticoagulation and DOACs in patients with cirrhosis. Articles were eligible for inclusion if the international society on thrombosis and hemostasis (ISTH) definition of a major bleed was the primary safety outcome. Additionally, only articles including patients with cirrhosis and receiving treatment with anticoagulation for an indication for stroke prevention or venous thromboembolism were eligible. Eligible articles needed a DOAC comparator group against traditional anticoagulant medication. Seven studies met inclusion criteria and compiled data for 683 patients in the meta-analysis. Pooled trial analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of ISTH major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.28-1.07, I2 0%). Individual secondary outcomes of all bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage, or gastrointestinal bleeding also demonstrated no significant difference between DOACs and traditional anticoagulation. Use of DOACs in patients with mild to moderate cirrhosis carries similar risk to use of traditional anticoagulation.
Keywords: Anticoagulant drugs; Atrial fibrillation; Bleeding; Cirrhosis; Venous Thromboembolism.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.