Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant for treatment and prophylaxis of VTE patients with renal insufficiency: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Thrombosis Journal volume 22, Article number: 17 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) comorbid renal insufficiency (RI) are at higher risk of bleeding and thrombosis. Recommendations in guidelines on anticoagulation therapy for those patients remain ambiguous. The goal of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety between different anticoagulant regimens in VTE patients comorbid RI at different stages of treatment and prophylaxis. We performed English-language searches of Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (inception to Nov 2022). RCTs evaluated anticoagulants for VTE treatment at the acute phase, extension phase, and prophylaxis in patients with RI and reported efficacy and safety outcomes were selected. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed at the outcome level using the risk-of-bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. A meta-analysis of twenty-five RCTs was conducted, comprising data from twenty-three articles, encompassing a total of 9,680 participants with RI. In the acute phase, the risk of bleeding was increased with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to LMWH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04–1.60). For the prophylaxis of VTE, NOACs were associated with an elevated risk of bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.02–1.68). In comparison to non-RI patients, both NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) could increase the risk of bleeding among RI patients (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.14–1.84 and RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.25–1.88, respectively) during acute phase, while NOACs may increase the incidence of VTE in RI population (RR 1.74, 95%CI 1.29–2.34). RI patients who are under routine anticoagulation have a significantly higher risk of adverse outcomes. LMWH is the most effective and safe option for VTE treatment or prophylaxis in patients with RI.

Highlights

• Renal insufficient (RI) patients were at significant higher risk of adverse outcomes, especially bleeding, than non-RI patients under the use of routine anticoagulation treatment.

• Low molecular weight heparin (LWMH) would be an optimized option for patients with RI undergoing VTE treatment and prophylaxis, both in terms of efficacy and safety.

• These findings provide comprehensive evidence for the optimal choice of anticoagulants for the treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with comorbid RI.

Introduction

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cardiovascular disease, with an incidence of 60–120 per 100,000 in the United States each year [1]. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent prognostic factor for the poor prognoses of PE patients including bleeding and death [2].

Anticoagulation is the primary treatment for acute PE, including Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, e.g. warfarin), unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs, e.g. dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, etc.), most of which are excreted through kidney [3]. Thus, an individual’s renal function, indicated by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (CrCl), is vital for determining appropriate anticoagulants. Renal insufficiency could lead to anticoagulant accumulation and abnormal blood concentration escalation. Studies reported that the area under the concentration–time curves (AUCs) and maximum concentrations (Cmax) of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban were higher in PE patients with renal insufficiency than those with normal renal function [4,5,6]. For VKA, a low-dose maintenance treatment is necessary for PE patients with CKD due to its short effective time window and unpredictable pharmacodynamics, even though most metabolic products of warfarin are not excreted through the kidney [7]. Previous studies have suggested that accumulation of anticoagulants in vivo may increase the risk of bleeding [8, 9]. Therefore, selecting the optimal anticoagulant for PE patients with renal insufficiency (RI) to ensure efficacy and safety remains a challenge.

Following the current guidelines, UFH is recommended for PE patients with severe renal insufficiency (CrCl less than 30 mL/min) as initial anticoagulants, followed by VKA, or the dosage of LMWH should be adjusted based on anti-factor-Xa levels [10,11,12,13]. However, recommendations on LMWH are still controversial in the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) guidelines. It is also noteworthy that although NOACs have been widely applied in the general population over the past decades, fewseldom study has been conducted among PE patients with RI. Thus, after thoroughly acquiring data, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of current anticoagulants to provide additional information from a statistical perspective and identify research orientation for future studies.

Methods

Study eligibility and selection

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) [14, 15]. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception up to Nov 30, 2022. We used keywords related to venous thromboembolism, kidney function, and anticoagulants in the title and the full text of articles (eTable1 in Supplement 1). We hand-searched reference lists from relevant review articles and meta-analyses to identify any additional studies.

Two reviewers (S.M and F.X) independently performed the review, and disagreements were resolved in a panel discussion with an additional reviewer (G.F). The inclusion criteria for our study were: 1) randomized controlled trials; 2) adult patients (≥ 18 years old) diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or PE or required VTE prophylaxis: ((a) eligible patients had to have acute symptomatic proximal DVT, PE or both. (b) eligible patients had to have objectively confirmed, symptomatic proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and had been treated for 3 to 12 months with anticoagulation. (c) eligible patients had to have additional risk factors for venous thromboembolism.); 3) treatment with intravenous, subcutaneous or oral anticoagulants (including NOACs, UFH, LMWH, VKA, fondaparinux, etc.) compared with one another or placebo; 4) patients with determined RI (CrCl < 50-60 ml/min or eGFR < 50-60 ml/min/1.73m2); 5) reporting efficacy, bleeding outcomes, or both. We excluded observational studies, crossover trials, patients with dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and studies published in non-English language and conference abstracts.

Outcome measures

For treatment evaluation in acute and extension phase, the primary efficacy outcomes were recurrent VTE or death associated with VTE. For prophylaxis, the primary efficacy outcome was the presence of asymptomatic or symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death. The safety outcomes were major bleeding and/or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the criteria in the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostatsis (ISTH) [16].

Data extraction and quality assessment

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers (F.X and S.M), and disagreements were resolved via consultation with another reviewer (G.F). A standardized form was used to extract the following data: study identifier, study design, location, length of follow-up, number of participants, age, sex, groups of renal function, intervention and control drugs; information relevant to the risk-of-bias assessment (including adherence to and withdrawal from randomized allocation); definition of outcomes and number of events. The methodological quality of each included study was assessed at the outcome level independently by two reviewers (F.X and S.M) using the risk-of-bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Bias Methods Group [17] and checked by the third party (G.F) (eFigure1 in Supplement 1).

Data synthesis and analysis

As outcome data were acquired at different time points, we divided the studies into three categories: prophylactic phases, acute phase, and extension phase. The results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A treatment group continuity correction was used if there were 0 events in one group in a trial. Summary estimates were obtained with a random-effects model using the Paule-Mandel method. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was estimated using the I2 test, with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% corresponding to low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. Statistical analyses were performed with Stata, version 16 (Stata, College Station, TX).

Results

Search results and characteristics of included studies

We obtained 8991 articles through preliminary screening. Duplicate and irrelevant articles were deleted. Six hundred and three articles were evaluated in full text, with 8 articles assessed as eligible but not used in data extraction (n = 8). Five hundred and eighty articles were excluded, including inappropriate population (n = 445); no drugs of interest (n = 44); no relevant outcomes (n = 23); subgroup analysis not of interest (n = 58); not a randomized controlled trial (n = 10). Finally, 23 articles were included for meta-analysis, including data from 25 trials (Fig. 1, Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flow chart

Abbreviations: VTE, venous thromboembolism; RI, renal insufficiency

Full size image
Table 1 Summary of studies included in meta-analysis
Full size table

In the treatment of the acute phase, five trials involving 1759 patients compared the efficacy and safety between NOACs and VKA [18,19,20,21,22]. Two trials compared the efficacy and safety between LMWH and VKA [23, 24]. The Innohep® in Renal Insufficiency Study (IRIS) compared the efficacy and safety between LMWH and UFH [25]. Three trials compared the efficacy and safety between NOACs and LMWH [26,27,28].

In the treatment of the extension phase, EINSTEIN-CHOICE compared the efficacy and safety of two dosages of NOACs with those of aspirin for up to 1 year after the initial 6 to 12 months of therapy [29]. RE-MEDY and RE-SONATE compared the effectiveness of NOACs vs VKA and NOACs vs placebo [20]. Two trials investigated the efficacy and safety of NOACs vs placebo [30, 31]. Moreover, AMPLIFY-EXT also compared the efficacy and safety of low-dose NOACs vs placebo [30].

For VTE prophylaxis, four trials were included to analyze the safety and efficacy of NOAC and LMWH [32,33,34,35]. One trial compared the safety and efficacy between desirudin and LMWH [36]. Three trials investigated the effectiveness of NOACs versus placebo [37,38,39]. One trial compared the efficacy and safety of LMWH vs UFH [40].

Comparisons of different anticoagulants among patients with RI

VTE treatment in the acute phase

In the acute phase, a total of 3,475 VTE patients with RI were involved from eleven studies. Four pairs of comparisons were analyzed: NOACs vs VKA, LMWH vs VKA, LMWH vs UFH and NOACs vs LMWH. Among all the pairs, efficacy endpoints were not significantly different. For safety outcomes, NOACs were associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared to LMWH (RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.04–1.60). No significant difference was observed in the other pairs of comparisons (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparisons of Different Anticoagulants among Patients with RI in Forest Plot

Abbreviations: NOAC, novel oral anticoagulants; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; LMWH, low molecular heparin; UFH, unfractionated heparin

Full size image

VTE treatment in the extension phase

A total of seven studies with 668 VTE patients with RI were enrolled in the extension phase. Five pairs of comparisons were analyzed: NOACs vs aspirin, low-dose NOACs vs aspirin, NOACs vs VKA, NOACs vs placebo, and low-dose NOACs vs placebo. However, no statistically significant difference of efficacy was detected.

For safety outcomes, the placebo was at a lower risk of bleeding than low-dose NOACs (RR 1.64, 95%CI 1.03–2.62), while no significant difference was shown in other comparison pairs (Fig. 2).

VTE prophylaxis

The analysis of VTE prophylactic phases contained nine studies involving 5,537 VTE patients with RI. Four pairs of comparisons were analyzed: NOACs vs aspirin, low-dose NOACs vs aspirin, NOACs vs VKA, NOACs vs placebo and low-dose NOACs vs placebo. Compared with LMWH, desirudin was associated with a lower risk of VTE occurrence (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.51–0.98) but a higher risk of bleeding (RR 1.49, 95%CI 1.00–2.24) Meanwhile, NOACs significantly increased the risk of bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.02–1.68) (Fig. 2).

Efficacy and safety of different anticoagulants among patients with and without RI

We also conducted meta-analyses on participants with and without RI who had been prescribed each anticoagulant, to investigate the efficacy and safety of one particular anticoagulant in both populations.

VTE treatment in the acute phase

In the acute phase of the treatment studies, a total of 2,938 VTE patients with RI and 28,161 VTE patients without RI were included. Three anticoagulants were analyzed: NOACs, VKA, and LMWH. Among the seven studies using VKA, the risk of death or recurrent VTE was significantly higher in the RI patients (RR 1.43, 95%CI 1.13–1.82). For safety outcomes, NOACs and VKA might lead to a higher risk of bleeding among the RI patients compared with those without RI (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.14–1.84 and RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.25–1.88, respectively) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Effects of Different Anticoagulants among Patients with and without RI in Forest Plot

Abbreviations: NOAC, novel oral anticoagulants; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; LMWH, low molecular heparin.

Full size image

VTE treatment in the extension phase

In the extention phase of the treatment studies, a total of 559 VTE patients with RI and 10,474 VTE patients without RI were included. Five anticoagulants were analyzed: NOACs, aspirin, low-dose NOACs, VKA and placebo. The efficacy of these drugs between RI and non-RI patients was found to be similar. Aspirin may increase the risk of bleeding in RI patients (RR 3.21, 95%CI 1.28–8.09) (Fig. 3).

VTE prophylaxis

In the VTE prophylaxis studies, a total of 4,933 VTE patients with RI and 22,910 VTE patients without RI were included. Four anticoagulants were analyzed: NOACs, LMWH, desirudin and placebo. Compared with the non-RI population, NOACs may increase the occurrence of VTE in RI population (RR 1.74, 95%CI 1.29–2.34). There was no difference among groups treated with NOACs, placebo and desirudin, but LMWH could increase the risk of bleeding in the RI population (RR 1.33, 95%CI 1.01–1.75) (Fig. 3).

Discussion

In this study, we updated recent studies and innovatively divided them into acute-extension-prophylaxis stages as pathophysiological status differed. The results of our study showed that NOAC may increase the risk of bleeding in RI population, compared with non-RI patients, under the use of routine anticoagulation treatment. So far, this study is the most comprehensive study on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant for treatment and prophylaxis of VTE patients with RI (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Mechanisms of increased bleeding risk in VTE patients with RI

Abbreviations: VTE, venous thromboembolism; RI, renal insufficiency; NOAC, novel oral anticoagulant; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; LMWH, low molecular heparin

Full size image

The choice of anticoagulant remains controversial for VTE patients comorbid RI, who are at high risk of both bleeding and thrombosis. Clinical evidence was insufficient on the advantages or disadvantages of different treatment strategies. Ha et al. conducted a thorough meta-analysis of anticoagulants among patients with CKD in 2019 [41] but did not recommend a single anticoagulant regimen of the best efficacy-safety balance for VTE patients. The results of our previous study, a network meta-analysis of anticoagulants among VTE patients with RI, provided clues on the anticoagulation regimens for patients under such conditions [42]. In this study, we reviewed previous studies and further determined the risk and efficacy of specific anticoagulants in detail, which is helpful in further recommendations of anticoagulants.

The pharmacokinetics of anticoagulants in VTE patients with RI are characterized as reduced renal clearance, prolonged half-life and increased exposure to anticoagulant drugs thus elevated the risk of bleeding. Notably, one of the most wildly applied anticoagulants, LMWH, is preferentially excreted through the kidneys, so the administration should be cautious in patients with RI to reduce the drug accumulation and minimize the risk of bleeding. Therefore, guidelines recommend an adjusted dose of LMWH among patients with RI and monitor the level of anti-Xa [43,44,45]. In this way, the adjusted dose of LWWH appears to be safer in the acute PE population with RI, even for those with severe RI or other diseases co-administered with various drugs [46, 47]. Besides, different species of LMWHs have particular molecular weights and bioactivities, for example, studies found that tinzaparin (LMWH above approximately 5,000 Da) was less likely to accumulate than enoxaparin (LMWH below approximately 5,000 Da) in subjects with RI [48, 49]. Therefore, LMWH with lower dependence on renal clearance was preferred in clinical practice.

NOACs not only reduce the frequency of treatment monitoring compared with VKA, but also have similar efficacy in reducing the risk of VTE and a lower risk of overall bleeding (especially intracranial bleeding) in the general population [19]. Harel et al. demonstrated that among patients with CKD (defined as a CrCl ≤ 50 ml/min), no significant difference in efficacy existed between NOACs and VKA [50]. Siontis et al. reported that no difference was found in the rate of thromboembolic events between NOACs and VKA, with a lower risk of bleeding in patients taking NOACs in patients with end-stage kidney disease and atrial fibrillation [51]. Our study indicated that NOACs were comparable with VKA on efficacy, but superior to VKA on safety. However, NOACs were related to a higher risk of bleeding than LMWH during the acute phase. Furthermore, given the differences in renal-dependent excretion, the risks of bleeding among different NOACs vary. For example, dabigatran is mainly excreted through the kidneys thus more likely to accumulate in VTE patients with RI. Previous studies have found severe bleeding events with dabigatran in patients with RI [52, 53]. In general, LWMH would be an optimized option both in efficacy and safety for patients with RI, for VTE treatment or prophylaxis.

Additionally, we innovatively conducted the comparisons of efficacy and safety among different anticoagulants between patients with and without RI. Adverse outcomes occurred more frequent among patients with RI when applied with VKA in the acute phase or with NOACs in prophylaxis, and LMWH for VTE patients with RI might be as effective as those without RI. For safety consideration, patients with RI had higher risk of bleeding when applied with whichever anticoagulants, due to the pathophysiological changes in patients with RI. However, because of the limited number of RI population, there might be inevitable bias in comparison. More clinical studies particularly among the RI population are further required.

Potential limitations remain in our study: firstly, most of the clinical trials excluded patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min. The lack of evidence-based guidelines strongly suggests that RCTs are required to address the unmet need in this population, replenishing new and strong evidences. According to current guidelines, patients with severe renal insufficiency were recommended UFH [44], but the problems on accessibility and convenience remained. In real-world settings, most patients with CrCl < 30 mL/min were prescribed LMWH [46], thus, more investigations of pharmacokinetics were of great importance for those patients. Second, CrCl was estimated before enrollment of VTE patients and its dynamic changes were not monitored during treatment, which might impact the outcome. In addition, different compounds of LMWH and NOACs which were applied and comorbidities in different studies may also impact the prognoses of participators.

Conclusion

RI patients were at significantly higher risk than non-RI patients under the use of routine anticoagulation treatment. LWMH might be an optimized option both on efficacy and safety for patients with RI, for VTE treatment or prophylaxis.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Freund Y, Cohen-Aubart F, Bloom B. Acute pulmonary embolism. JAMA. 2022;328:1336. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16815.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ģībietis V, Kigitoviča D, Vītola B, et al. Glomerular filtration rate as a prognostic factor for long-term mortality after acute pulmonary embolism. Med Princ Pract. 2019;28:264–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000497436.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jain N, Reilly RF. Clinical pharmacology of oral anticoagulants in patients with kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14:278–87. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02170218.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stangier J, Rathgen K, Stähle H, et al. Influence of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral dabigatran etexilate. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49:259–68. https://doi.org/10.2165/11318170-000000000-00000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pengo V, Crippa L, Falanga A, et al. Phase III studies on novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a look beyond the excellent results. J Thromb Haemost. 2012; 10:1979-1987. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04866.x.

  6. Kubitza D, Becka M, Mueck W, et al. Effects of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of rivaroxaban, an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70:703–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2010.03753.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kleinow ME, Garwood CL, Clemente JL, et al. Effect of chronic kidney disease on warfarin management in a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:523–530. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2011.17.7.523.

  8. Ocak G, Rookmaaker MB, Algra A, et al. Chronic kidney disease and bleeding risk in patients at high cardiovascular risk: a cohort study. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.13904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Molnar AO, Bota SE, Garg AX, et al. The Risk of Major Hemorrhage with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27:2825–32. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2015050535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. McCormack T, Harrisingh MC, Horner D, et al. Venous thromboembolism in adults: summary of updated NICE guidance on diagnosis, management, and thrombophilia testing. BMJ. 2020:m1565. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1565.

  11. Bates SM, Rajasekhar A, Middeldorp S, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: venous thromboembolism in the context of pregnancy. Blood Adv. 2018;2:3317–59. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2018024802.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Farge D, Frere C, Connors JM, et al. 2019 international clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e566–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30336-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Key NS, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:496–520. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.01461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700–b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schulman S, Angerås U, Bergqvist D, et al. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:202–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03678.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928–d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldhaber S, Schulman S, Eriksson H, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin for acute venous thromboembolism in elderly or impaired renal function patients: pooled analysis of RE-COVER and RE-COVER II. Thromb Haemost. 2017;117:2045–52. https://doi.org/10.1160/TH17-03-0176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Investigators TH-V. Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1406–15. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306638.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Investigators TEP. Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2499–510. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1007903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Investigators TEP. Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1287–97. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, et al. Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:799–808. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1302507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Woodruff S, Feugère G, Abreu P, et al. A post hoc analysis of dalteparin versus oral anticoagulant (VKA) therapy for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (rVTE) in patients with cancer and renal impairment. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;42:494–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-016-1386-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee A, Kamphuisen P, Meyer G, et al. Renal impairment, recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding in cancer patients with acute venous thromboembolism—analysis of the CATCH Study. Thromb Haemost. 2018;118:914–21. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1641150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Leizorovicz A, Siguret V, Mottier D. Safety profile of tinzaparin versus subcutaneous unfractionated heparin in elderly patients with impaired renal function treated for acute deep vein thrombosis: The Innohep® in Renal Insufficiency Study (IRIS). Thromb Res. 2011;128:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2011.03.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Agnelli G, Becattini C, Meyer G, et al. Apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1599–607. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1915103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Raskob GE, van Es N, Verhamme P, et al. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:615–24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1711948.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Becattini C, Bauersachs R, Maraziti G, et al. Renal function and clinical outcome of patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism randomized to receive apixaban or dalteparin. Results from the Caravaggio trial. Haematologica. 2021;107:1567–76. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2021.279072.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Weitz JI, Lensing AWA, Prins MH, et al. Rivaroxaban or aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1211–22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1700518.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A, et al. Apixaban for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:699–708. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1207541.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK, et al. Extended use of dabigatran, warfarin, or placebo in venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:709–18. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113697.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dahl OE, Kurth AA, Rosencher N, et al. Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate in patients over seventy-five years of age with moderate renal impairment undergoing or knee replacement. Int Orthop. 2012;36:741–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1393-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen AT, Harrington RA, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Extended thromboprophylaxis with betrixaban in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:534–44. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1601747.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pineo GF, Gallus AS, Raskob GE, et al. Apixaban after hip or knee arthroplasty versus enoxaparin: efficacy and safety in key clinical subgroups. J Thromb Haemost. 2013;11:444–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Weitz JI, Raskob GE, Spyropoulos AC, et al. Thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban in acutely ill medical patients with renal impairment: insights from the MAGELLAN and MARINER Trials. Thromb Haemost. 2020;120:515–24. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1701009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shorr AF, Eriksson BI, Jaffer AK, et al. Impact of stage 3B chronic kidney disease on thrombosis and bleeding outcomes after orthopedic surgery in patients treated with desirudin or enoxaparin: insights from a randomized trial. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10:1515–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04803.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Spyropoulos AC, Ageno W, Albers GW, et al. Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after hospitalization for medical illness. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1118–27. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1805090.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Khorana AA, Soff GA, Kakkar AK, et al. rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1814630.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang TF, Mallick R, Carrier M, et al. Safety and efficacy of apixaban thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients according to renal function: a subgroup analysis of the AVERT trial. Thromb Res. 2022;211:85–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2022.01.022.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schellong S, Haas S, Tebbe U, et al. CERTIFY: prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with severe renal insufficiency. Thromb Haemost. 2011;105:981–8. https://doi.org/10.1160/TH10-09-0614.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ha JT, Neuen BL, Cheng LP, et al. Benefits and harms of oral anticoagulant therapy in chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:181. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-0087.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fan G, Wang D, Zhang M, et al. Anticoagulant for treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism patients with renal dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Med. 2022;9:979911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.979911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Stevens SM, Woller SC, Kreuziger LB, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease. Chest. 2021;160:e545–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.055.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M, et al. Executive summary. Chest. 2012;141:7S-47S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.1412S3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41:543–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang D, Fan G, Lei J, et al. LMWHs dosage and outcomes in acute pulmonary embolism with renal insufficiency, an analysis from a large real-world study. Thromb J. 2022;20:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-022-00385-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kostrubiec M, Pływaczewska M, Jiménez D, et al. The prognostic value of renal function in acute pulmonary embolism—a multi-centre cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2019;119:140–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pautas E, Gouin I, Bellot O, et al. Safety profile of tinzaparin administered once daily at a standard curative dose in two hundred very elderly patients. Drug Saf. 2002;25:725–33. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200225100-00005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Johansen KB, Balchen T. Tinzaparin and other low-molecular-weight heparins: what is the evidence for differential dependence on renal clearance? Exp Hematol Oncol. 2013;2:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/2162-3619-2-21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Harel Z, Sholzberg M, Shah PS, et al. Comparisons between novel oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in patients with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25:431–42. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2013040361.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Siontis KC, Zhang X, Eckard A, et al. Outcomes associated with apixaban use in patients with end-stage kidney disease and atrial fibrillation in the United States. Circulation. 2018;138:1519–29. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035418.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Fellows SE, Rosini JM, Curtis JA, et al. Hemorrhagic gastritis with dabigatran in a patient with renal insufficiency. J Emerg Med. 2013;44:e221–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.02.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Harinstein LM, Morgan JW, Russo N. Treatment of dabigatran-associated bleeding. J Pharm Pract. 2013;26:264–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190012465955.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study is supported by The National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFC2507200). National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding; Elite Medical Professionals. Project of China-Japan Friendship Hospital (NO.ZRJY2023-QM20). CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS)(2021-I2M-1–061). National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (2022-NHLHCRF-LX-01–02-03). CAMS Institute of Respiratory Medicine Grant for Young Scholars (2023-ZF-8).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shuangshuang Ma, Guohui Fan and Feiya Xu contributed equally to the work as co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. National Center for Respiratory Medicine; State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity; National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases; Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Center of Respiratory Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China

    Shuangshuang Ma

  2. School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College; State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity; Key Laboratory of Pathogen Infection Prevention and Control (Peking Union Medical College), Ministry of Education, Beijing, China

    Guohui Fan

  3. National Center for Respiratory Medicine; National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases; Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; Department of Clinical Research and Data Management, Center of Respiratory Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China

    Guohui Fan & Dingyi Wang

  4. Graduate School of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Feiya Xu

  5. Peking University China‑Japan Friendship School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, P.R. China

    Xiaomeng Zhang & Yinong Chen

  6. The First Bethune Hospital of Jilin University, Beijing, China

    Yuzhi Tao

  7. The First Clinical Medical College, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China

    Yishan Li

  8. Changping Laboratory, Beijing, China

    Yanshuang Lyu

  9. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

    Yanshuang Lyu

  10. Department of Physiology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and School of Basic Medicine, Peking Union Medical College; National Center for Respiratory Medicine; Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China

    Peiran Yang

  11. National Center for Respiratory Medicine; State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity; National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases; Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Center of Respiratory Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, 100029, China

    Shuangshuang Ma, Feiya Xu, Xiaomeng Zhang, Yinong Chen, Yuzhi Tao, Yishan Li & Zhenguo Zhai

  12. National Center for Respiratory Medicine; State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Health and Multimorbidity; National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Diseases, Beijing, 100029, China

    Chen Wang

  13. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, No 2, East Yinghua Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China

    Chen Wang

  14. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Capital Medical University, No 2, East Yinghua Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, China

    Chen Wang

Authors
  1. Shuangshuang Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guohui Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feiya Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaomeng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yinong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuzhi Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yishan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yanshuang Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Peiran Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Dingyi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Zhenguo Zhai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Chen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.W., Z.Z. and C.W. designed the study. D.W., S.M. and F.X. searched the database and screened the involved studies. S.M. and G.F. analyzed the data. G.F., D.W., S.M and F.X. drafted the manuscript and all authors revised the manuscript and approved it for submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dingyi Wang, Zhenguo Zhai or Chen Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

eTable 1. Search strategies. eFigure 1. Classification of risk of bias for each study domain among VTE patients with based on Cochrane tool.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, S., Fan, G., Xu, F. et al. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant for treatment and prophylaxis of VTE patients with renal insufficiency: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Thrombosis J 22, 17 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-023-00576-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-023-00576-2

Keywords

Thrombosis Journal

ISSN: 1477-9560

Contact us