4.7 Review

Gastrointestinal Bleeding Due to NOACs Use: Exploring the Molecular Mechanisms

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232213955

关键词

novel oral anticoagulants; NOACs; gastrointestinal bleeding; edoxaban; apixaban; rivaroxaban; dabigatran; warfarin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NOACs are a safer alternative to warfarin for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic cardiovascular conditions. Studies have shown that apixaban has a lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban, and gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with NOACs is generally less severe than with warfarin. The use of NOACs is increasing and widespread in patients who require anticoagulation, with an overall lower risk of major bleeding events. However, caution is still needed in patients at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.
Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are drugs approved for the prevention and treatment of many thromboembolic cardiovascular conditions as a safer alternative to warfarin. We reviewed studies published in PubMed(R), UpToDate(R), Web of Science(R), and Cochrane(R) about NOACs' risks and benefits in patients requiring anticoagulation, with a focus on gastrointestinal bleeding and on molecular and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the risk of bleeding in patients treated with them. Apixaban resulted in a lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban. However, data reported that gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with NOACs was less severe compared to warfarin. Studies show promising results on the increased and widespread use of NOACs in patients who require anticoagulation (for example-in case of atrial fibrillation or high risk of venous thromboembolism), reporting an overall lower risk of major bleeding events. The profile of NOACs was more effective and secure compared to warfarin, but a more careful medical prescription is required in patients who are at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据