Direct oral anticoagulants were associated with higher treatment satisfaction compared with vitamin K antagonists for venous thromboembolic disease.
Systematic Review
Do direct oral anticoagulants or low-molecular-weight heparin improve patient satisfaction compared to vitamin K antagonists in patients with venous thromboembolic disease?
This systematic review highlights that DOACs are generally associated with higher patient satisfaction and improved quality of life compared to VKAs in the management of VTE.
Background and Objectives: Venous thromboembolic disease (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and imposes a substantial financial burden on health systems due to both the direct and indirect costs of acute management and long-term complications. This systematic review aimed to assess patient satisfaction with anticoagulation therapy for VTE and to highlight potential differences according to the type of anticoagulant. The review focused on factors influencing the patient experience, such as perceived efficacy, ease of use, adverse effects, and health-related quality of life. Materials and Methods: A systematic review, without quantitative meta-analysis, was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Articles were identified through searches in major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and others) using keywords including “patient satisfaction”, “anticoagulation”, “venous thromboembolic disease”, and “quality of life”. In total, 21 studies published between 2009 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria. The studies assessed patient satisfaction with different types of anticoagulation, including vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) injections. Results: Across the included studies, patients generally reported higher levels of treatment satisfaction with DOACs compared with VKAs, mainly due to the absence of routine laboratory monitoring and fewer dietary restrictions. However, satisfaction varied according to age, sex, and clinical status. In specific patient populations, such as those with cancer-associated thrombosis, factors including fewer drug–drug interactions and perceptions of safety with LMWH appeared to influence treatment choice and satisfaction. Adverse effects, particularly bleeding, were identified as major drivers of dissatisfaction. Several studies suggested that higher treatment satisfaction was associated with better adherence, while quality of life appeared to improve in patients treated with DOACs in comparison with VKAs. Conclusions: Patient satisfaction is a critical component of successful VTE management. Overall, DOACs appear to be associated with higher treatment satisfaction than traditional therapies such as VKAs, although further high-quality research is needed to individualise anticoagulation strategies. Systematic incorporation of patient-reported satisfaction into clinical decision-making and into international guidelines may improve adherence, enhance quality of life, and ultimately increase the effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy.
Lefkou et al. (Fri,) conducted a systematic review in Venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) was evaluated on Patient satisfaction. Direct oral anticoagulants were associated with higher treatment satisfaction compared with vitamin K antagonists for venous thromboembolic disease.