Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as first-line anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in patients with cancer and AF the efficacy and safety of DOACs are not well established. Objective We performed a meta-analysis comparing available data regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in cancer patients with non-valvular AF. Methods An online search of Pubmed and EMBASE libraries (from inception to May, 1 2020) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Nine studies were considered eligible for the meta-analysis involving 46,424 DOACs users and 182,797 VKA users. Results The use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of systemic embolism or any stroke (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52–0.81; p 0.001), ischemic stroke (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.95; p 0.007) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52–0.71; p 0.00001) as compared to VKA group. DOAC use was associated with significantly reduced risks of major bleeding (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50–0.92; p 0.01) and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47–0.88; p 0.006). Compared to VKA, DOACs provided a non-statistically significant risk reduction of the outcomes major bleeding or non-major clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78–1.13; p 0.50) and any bleeding (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; p 0.24). Conclusions In comparison to VKA, DOACs were associated with a significant reduction of the rates of thromboembolic events and major bleeding complications in patients with AF and cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.

No abstract

Background: Early diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) plays a key role to prevent adverse cardiac events such as myocardial infarction and Left Ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Myocardial Work (MW) indices derived from echocardiographic speckle tracking data in combination with non-invasive blood pressure recordings seems promising to predict CAD even in the absence of impairments of standard echocardiographic parameters. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MW indices to predict CAD and to assess intra-and inter-observer variability of MW through a meta-analysis. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for observational studies evaluating the MW indices diagnostic accuracy for predicting CAD and intra-and inter-observer variability of MW indices. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curves were assessed.Results: Five studies enrolling 501 patients met inclusion criteria. Global Constructive Work (GCW) had the best pooled sensitivity (89%) followed by GLS (84%), Global Work Index (GWI) (82%), Global Work Efficiency (GWE) (80%), and Global Wasted Work (GWW) (75%). GWE had the best pooled specificity (78%) followed by GWI (75%), GCW (70%), GLS (68%), and GWW (61%). GCW had the best accuracy according to SROC curves, with an area under the curve of 0.86 compared to 0.84 for GWI, 0.83 for GWE, 0.79 for GLS, and 0.74 for GWW. All MW indices had an excellent intra-and inter-observer variability.Conclusions: GCW is the best MW index proving best diagnostic accuracy in the prediction of CAD with an excellent reproducibility.