Abstract
Patients diagnosed with cancer often experience an abnormal occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its related complications. In order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of both treatment approaches, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis within the realm of cancer-associated thromboembolism. A thorough search was conducted across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to find studies comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with malignancy. The analyses utilized the random-effects model. This meta-analysis included 11 studies. The results showed that DOACs were associated with a significantly reduced risk of VTE recurrence (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81, p<0.0001; I2: 0%) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.86, p<0.0001; I2: 0%) compared to LMWHs. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.06, p=0.11; I2: 11%) between the two groups. The use of DOACs was also associated with a non-significant increase in the risk of major bleeding events (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.78, p: 0.26; I2: 49%), while clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) was significantly higher with DOACs (RR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.11, 3.30, p: 0.02; I2: 81%). Secondary outcomes, such as survival rates and fatal PE, did not show significant differences between the two treatment groups. Our analysis indicates that direct oral anticoagulants exhibit a substantial decrease in the occurrence of VTE recurrence, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism when compared to low molecular weight heparin in cancer-associated thromboembolism. However, it should be noted that DOACs carry a higher risk of CRNMB. Based on these findings, DOACs are recommended as a superior therapeutic option for managing cancer-associated thromboembolism compared to LMWH.