Table 3.

Effect of DOACs vs LMWHs on patient-important outcomes at the end of 30- to 42-day prophylaxis

OutcomesNo. of participants (studies) followed upGRADE certainty in the evidenceRelative effect (95% CI)Anticipated absolute effects
Risk with LMWHsRisk difference with DOACs
Mortality 20 225
(3 RCTs) 
⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderate*, RR 1.01
(0.89-1.14) 
Study population: 49 per 1000
High-risk patients: 99 per 1000 
Study population: 0 fewer per 1000 (5 fewer to 7 more)
High-risk patients: 1 more per 1000 (11 fewer to 14 more) 
PE 18 827
(3 RCTs) 
⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderate§ RR 0.67
(0.41-1.09) 
Study population: 4 per 1000
Moderate-risk patients: 4 per 1000|| 
Study population: 1 fewer per 1000 (2 fewer to 0 fewer)
Moderate-risk patients: 1 fewer per 1000 (2 fewer to 0 fewer) 
Symptomatic DVT 18 838
(3 RCTs) 
⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderate RR 0.62
(0.36-1.05) 
Study population: 6 per 1000
Low-risk patients: 2 per 1000#,** 
Study population: 2 fewer per 1000 (4 fewer to 0 fewer)
Low-risk patients: 1 fewer per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 fewer) 
Major bleeding 21 831
(3 RCTs)1-3  
⊕⊕⊕⊕ High RR 1.99
(1.08-3.65) 
Study population: 4 per 1000
High-risk patients: 12 per 1000†† 
Study population: 4 more per 1000 (0 fewer to 10 more)
High-risk patients: 12 more per 1000 (1 more to 32 more) 
OutcomesNo. of participants (studies) followed upGRADE certainty in the evidenceRelative effect (95% CI)Anticipated absolute effects
Risk with LMWHsRisk difference with DOACs
Mortality 20 225
(3 RCTs) 
⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderate*, RR 1.01
(0.89-1.14) 
Study population: 49 per 1000
High-risk patients: 99 per 1000 
Study population: 0 fewer per 1000 (5 fewer to 7 more)
High-risk patients: 1 more per 1000 (11 fewer to 14 more) 
PE 18 827
(3 RCTs) 
⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderate§ RR 0.67
(0.41-1.09) 
Study population: 4 per 1000
Moderate-risk patients: 4 per 1000|| 
Study population: 1 fewer per 1000 (2 fewer to 0 fewer)
Moderate-risk patients: 1 fewer per 1000 (2 fewer to 0 fewer) 
Symptomatic DVT 18 838
(3 RCTs) 
⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderate RR 0.62
(0.36-1.05) 
Study population: 6 per 1000
Low-risk patients: 2 per 1000#,** 
Study population: 2 fewer per 1000 (4 fewer to 0 fewer)
Low-risk patients: 1 fewer per 1000 (1 fewer to 0 fewer) 
Major bleeding 21 831
(3 RCTs)1-3  
⊕⊕⊕⊕ High RR 1.99
(1.08-3.65) 
Study population: 4 per 1000
High-risk patients: 12 per 1000†† 
Study population: 4 more per 1000 (0 fewer to 10 more)
High-risk patients: 12 more per 1000 (1 more to 32 more) 
*

Concern about applying the data to a “real-life” population both with regard to baseline risks in the RCTs but baseline risk estimates from observational studies are realistic.

Serious imprecision. The relative estimate of effect is compatible with important harm and important benefit for the intervention that probably crosses the relevant decision threshold.

Spencer et al11  reported on incidence rates of all-cause mortality in older adults based on a community-based study (n = 1223) prospective and retrospective).

§

Serious imprecision. Wide CI with only 66 events in total, and important harm or benefit is still likely or cannot be excluded.

||

Guijarro17  reports on the incidence of PE in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients (n = 1 148 301) based on findings from the Spanish National Discharge Database from October 2005 to September 2006 (retrospective database study).

Serious imprecision. Wide CI with only 85 events in total, and important harm or benefit is still likely or cannot be excluded.

#

Guijarro17  reports on the incidence of DVT in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients (n=1 148 301) based on findings from the Spanish National Discharge Database from October 2005 to September 2006 (retrospective database study).

**

We applied the assumption that ∼20% of symptomatic DVTs are proximal, 80% are distal, and 100% of each is of moderate severity.

††

Spencer et al11  reported on incidence rates of major bleeding in older adults based on a community-based study (n = 1223) (prospective and retrospective).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal