Evidence Hub

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for cerebral venous thrombosis (DOAC-CVT): an international, prospective, observational cohort study

A. van de Munckhof, M. S. van Kammen, T. Tatlisumak, K. Krzywicka, Sanjith Aaron, F. Antochi, A. Arauz, M. A. Barboza et al.

Lancet Neurology, 2025

619 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is an unmet need for high-quality data from prospective studies on the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of CVT in a setting that reflects daily clinical practice.

METHODS

DOAC-CVT was an international, prospective, observational cohort study done in 65 hospitals in 23 countries across five continents. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with radiologically confirmed CVT starting oral anticoagulant treatment with either DOACs or VKAs, as per local practice, within 30 days after diagnosis. Exclusion criteria were previous use of anticoagulants at the time of CVT diagnosis or an absolute contraindication to DOACs (eg, pregnancy and lactation, or severe renal or liver disease). Data were collected during routine clinical visits or telephone consultations at CVT diagnosis (baseline) and at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after CVT diagnosis. The primary endpoint was a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria) at 6 months. Main outcomes were adjusted for the confounders age, renal function, active cancer, CNS infections, concomitant antiplatelet use, country of inclusion's income status, Glasgow Coma Scale score, intracranial haemorrhage, antiphospholipid…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 619 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free