Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Review published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2024)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungBejjani et al. · Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2024

Abstract

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard of care in conditions such as mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. DOACs do not provide a net benefit in conditions such as embolic stroke of undetermined source. Their efficacy is uncertain for conditions such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thrombosis who have end-stage renal disease. This paper provides an evidence-based review of randomized controlled trials on DOACs, detailing when they have demonstrated efficacy and safety, when DOACs should not be the standard of care, where their safety and efficacy are uncertain, and areas requiring further research.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleReviewResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAdministration, OralAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationThrombosisVenous ThromboembolismVenous ThrombosisVitamin KRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Zusammenfassung

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard...

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This review examines evidence from randomized controlled trials to identify clinical scenarios where direct oral anticoagulants may not be efficacious or safe, including mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. It also highlights conditions where DOAC efficacy is uncertain, such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. The abstract contains no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, leech-derived anticoagulants, or alternative or localized anticoagulant approaches. There is no defensible connection to ASH's domain, as the focus is exclusively on evaluating oral pharmaceutical agents and their clinical limitations.

Zitation

When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Bejjani et al. · Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2024

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

Zur ASH-Bibliothek hinzugefügt: May 28, 2026 · Letzte Aktualisierung der Website: June 18, 2026

Diese Website stellt Bildungsinformationen bereit und ist weder eine medizinische Beratung noch eine Diagnose oder Behandlungsempfehlung. Die medizinische Blutegeltherapie ist mit klinisch relevanten Risiken verbunden und sollte ausschließlich von qualifizierten Klinikerinnen und Klinikern unter institutionell genehmigten Protokollen durchgeführt werden. Die FDA-510(k)-Zulassung für medizinische Blutegel ist auf bestimmte Indikationen beschränkt; experimentelle und Off-Label-Diskussionen werden entsprechend gekennzeichnet. Für patientenspezifische Beratung wenden Sie sich an eine qualifizierte Gesundheitsfachkraft.