-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both), and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both), and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The prevalence of APS is estimated at 40 to 50 cases per 100,000 people. The most common sites of thrombosis are cerebral arteries and deep veins of the lower limbs. People with a definite APS diagnosis have an increased lifetime risk of recurrent thrombotic events.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antiplatelet (AP) or anticoagulant agents, or both, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis, particularly ischemic stroke, in people with APS.
SEARCH METHODS
We last searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, and ongoing trials registers on 22 November 2019. We checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines. We also contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anticoagulant or AP agent, or both, in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people with APS, according to the criteria valid when the study took place. We did not include studies specifically addressing women with obstetrical APS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently worked on each step of the review, following Cochrane methods. We summarized the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight studies including 811 participants that compared different AP or anticoagulant agents. NOAC (non-VKA oral anticoagulant: rivaroxaban 15 or 20 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (vitamin K antagonist: warfarin at moderate International Normalized Ratio [INR] - 2.5) or adjusted [INR 2.0-3.0] dose): In three studies there were no differences in any thromboembolic event (including death) and major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of stroke (risk ratio [RR] 14.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87 to 106.8; moderate-certainty evidence). One of the studies reported a small benefit of rivaroxaban in terms of quality of life at 180 days measured as health state on Visual Analogue Scale (mean difference [MD] 7 mm, 95% CI 2.01 to 11.99; low-certainty evidence), but not measured as health utility on a scale from 0 to 1 (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10; low-certainty evidence). High-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 3.1 to 4.0 [mean 3.3] or 3.5 [mean 3.2]) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 [mean 2.3] or 2.5 [mean 2.5]): In two studies there were no differences in the rates of thrombotic events and major bleeding (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.23, low-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of minor bleeding in one study during a mean of 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD] 1.2) of follow-up (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.07). In both trials there was evidence of a higher risk of any bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03 95% CI 1.12 to 3.68; low-certainty evidence) in the high-dose VKA group, and for this outcome (any bleeding) the incidence is not different, only the time to event is showing an effect. Standard-dose VKA plus a single AP agent (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 plus aspirin 100 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0): One high-risk-of-bias study showed an increased risk of any thromboembolic event with combined treatment (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.43; low-certainty evidence) and reported on major bleeding with five cases in the combined treatment group and one case in the standard-dose VKA treatment group, resulting in RR 7.42 (95% CI 0.91 to 60.7; low-certainty evidence) and no differences for secondary outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Single/dual AP agent and standard-dose VKA (pooled results): Two high-risk-of-bias studies compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin or unspecified VKA at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.0 to 2.5) with a single AP agent (aspirin 100 mg/d), but did not provide any conclusive evidence regarding the effects of those drugs in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence). One of the above-mentioned studies was a three-armed study that compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 2.5) with dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) and dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) versus a single AP treatment (aspirin 100 mg/d). This study reported on stroke (very low-certainty evidence) but did not report on any thromboembolic events, major bleeding, or any secondary outcomes. We identified two ongoing studies and three studies are awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence identified indicates that NOACs compared with standard-dose VKAs may increase the risk of stroke and do not appear to alter the risk of other outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). Using high-dose VKA versus standard-dose VKA did not alter the risk of any thromboembolic event or major bleeding but may increase the risk of any form of bleeding (low-certainty evidence). Standard-dose VKA combined with an AP agent compared with standard-dose VKA alone may increase the risk of any thromboembolic event and does not appear to alter the risk of major bleeding or other outcomes (low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the benefit or harm of using standard-dose VKA plus AP agents versus single or dual AP therapy, or dual versus single AP therapy, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Anticoagulants; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Cause of Death; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivaroxaban; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 33045766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012169.pub3 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis :... Feb 2023Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) represents a common thrombotic disorder. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) represents a common thrombotic disorder.
OBJECTIVES
In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy in RVO.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to December 2021 for observational studies and randomized controlled trials including patients with RVO. Efficacy outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity improvement, recurrent RVO, fluorescein angiography improvement, cardiovascular events, and safety outcomes were major bleeding and intraocular bleeding.
RESULTS
A total of 1422 patients (15 studies) were included. Antiplatelet therapy was administered to 477 patients (13 studies), anticoagulant therapy to 312 patients (12 studies), and 609 (7 studies) patients received no antithrombotic treatment. The treatment duration ranged between 0.5 and 3 months. The median follow-up duration was 12 months. Best-corrected visual acuity improvement was reported in 58% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 45%-69%) overall, 64% (95% CI, 58%-71%) in those on anticoagulant therapy, and 33% (95% CI, 21%-47%) in those on antiplatelet therapy. The rates of recurrent RVO was 11% (95% CI, 7%-17%), 7% (95% CI, 2%-19%), and 15% (95% CI, 8%-28%), respectively. The rate of recurrent RVO in untreated patients was 9% (95% CI, 6%-14%). The rate of major bleeding was 5% (95% CI, 3%-9%) overall, 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%) in those on anticoagulant therapy, and 7% (95% CI, 2%-23%) in those on antiplatelet therapy.
CONCLUSION
Anticoagulant therapy was associated with higher visual acuity improvement and fewer recurrent RVO events than antiplatelet therapy, at the cost of an acceptable proportion of bleeding complications.
Topics: Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Anticoagulants; Thrombosis; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 36700511
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtha.2022.10.003 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Mar 2016Femoral neck fractures in the elderly make up a large proportion of Orthopaedic surgical admissions each year. Operating on patients with clopidogrel poses a challenge... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Femoral neck fractures in the elderly make up a large proportion of Orthopaedic surgical admissions each year. Operating on patients with clopidogrel poses a challenge because of the risk of bleeding and the difficulty deciding the optimal timing of surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the published evidence to establish a set of guidelines for approaching neck of femur patients who are on clopidogrel.
METHODS
All comparative studies with an intervention group and a control group were considered. Data on patient blood transfusion exposures, units transfused, haemoglobin concentration and drop in haemoglobin were extracted and pooled using the fixed effects model. Heterogeneity of the intervention effect was assessed with the I (2) statistic.
RESULTS
A total of 4219 studies were identified. After removal of duplicates and after exclusion criteria were applied, there were 14 studies to be included. All 14 were case series with controls. There was no significant heterogeneity amongst the studies. Pooled odds ratio for transfusion exposures was 1.24 (95 % confidence interval 0.91 to 1.71) however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.14). No significant mean differences were found for other primary outcome measures.
CONCLUSIONS
On the available evidence, we recommend that these patients can be managed by normal protocols with early surgery. Operating early on patients on clopidogrel is safe and does not appear to confer any clinically significant bleeding risk. As reported in other studies, we believe clopidogrel, if possible, should not be withheld throughout the perioperative period due to increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with stopping clopidogrel. Care should be taken intraoperatively to minimise blood loss due to the increased potential for bleeding.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered on Research Registry on July 16, 2015. The Review Registry Unique Identifying Number is: reviewregistry61 .
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Chi-Square Distribution; Clopidogrel; Drug Administration Schedule; Femoral Neck Fractures; Fracture Fixation; Humans; Odds Ratio; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Ticlopidine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27005816
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-0988-9 -
Lancet (London, England) Apr 2021Whether guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is effective in improving outcomes compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Whether guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is effective in improving outcomes compared with standard antiplatelet therapy remains controversial. We assessed the safety and efficacy of guided versus standard selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, from Aug 20 to Oct 25, 2020, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials and observational studies published in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, by means of platelet function testing or genetic testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were used with random-effects or fixed-effect models according to the estimated heterogeneity among studies assessed by the I index. Coprimary endpoints were trial-defined primary major adverse cardiovascular events and any bleeding. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and major and minor bleeding. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021215901).
FINDINGS
3656 potentially relevant articles were screened. Our analysis included 11 randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with data for 20 743 patients. Compared with standard therapy, guided selection of antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63-0·95, p=0·015) and reduced bleeding, although not statistically significant (RR 0·88, 0·77-1·01, p=0·069). Cardiovascular death (RR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00, p=0·049), myocardial infarction (RR 0·76, 0·60-0·96, p=0·021), stent thrombosis (RR 0·64, 0·46-0·89, p=0·011), stroke (RR 0·66, 0·48-0·91, p=0·010), and minor bleeding (RR 0·78, 0·67-0·92, p=0·0030) were reduced with guided therapy compared with standard therapy. Risks of all-cause death and major bleeding did not differ between guided and standard approaches. Outcomes varied according to the strategy used, with an escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in ischaemic events without any trade-off in safety, and a de-escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in bleeding, without any trade-off in efficacy.
INTERPRETATION
Guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improved both composite and individual efficacy outcomes with a favourable safety profile, driven by a reduction in minor bleeding, supporting the use of platelet function or genetic testing to optimise the choice of agent in patients undergoing PCI.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy; Hemorrhage; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Platelet Function Tests; Prasugrel Hydrochloride; Stroke; Ticagrelor
PubMed: 33865495
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00533-X -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Few strategies are effective for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Buflomedil is a vasoactive agent that has been used for peripheral arterial diseases. Research... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Few strategies are effective for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Buflomedil is a vasoactive agent that has been used for peripheral arterial diseases. Research studies have suggested that buflomedil may have beneficial effects in people with cerebral vascular diseases, including acute ischaemic stroke, however it has not been approved for treating stroke in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of buflomedil for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1980 to February 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (July 2014), Web of Science (including Conference Proceedings Citation Index Science (CPCI-S)) (July 2014), and four Chinese databases (February 2014). We also searched five ongoing trials registers and reference lists of the included trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of buflomedil in people with acute ischaemic stroke. The primary outcome of this review was long-term death or disability/dependence. Other outcomes included short-term death, short-term disability, neurological deficits, and adverse events. We included trials comparing buflomedil versus a placebo control, trials comparing buflomedil plus usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, or those comparing buflomedil plus another intervention versus that intervention alone. We excluded trials comparing buflomedil alone with other potentially active intervention(s).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently scrutinised citations, selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included trials. We reported risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data. We performed meta-analysis, using a random-effects model, for death and improvement of neurological deficits. Data for disability/dependence and adverse events were not suitable for meta-analysis thus we reported these narratively. We performed subgroup analyses for time of recruitment since stroke, delivery route, daily dose, and treatment duration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 trials (2756 participants), all conducted in China. All participants were inpatients within the first few days after stroke onset (mean age 58 to 75 years and male proportion 45% to 80%). Most trials delivered buflomedil intravenously, with a daily dose of 200 mg for 14 days. The study quality was generally poor and many trials were poorly reported.Only one trial reported long-term death and disability, where stroke survivors in the buflomedil group had a lower risk of suffering 'death or disability' than those in the control group (200 participants, RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.94). All 26 trials assessed outcomes by the end of treatment (eight trials with 1056 participants reported death, one trial with 85 participants reported disability, and 26 trials with 2756 participants reported neurological deficits), but there was no robust evidence for any of these short-term outcomes. Seventeen trials (1899 participants) investigated the presence of adverse events during the treatment, of which six trials (853 participants) reported "no significant adverse event in any participants" and the other 11 trials (1046 participants) reported a total of 38 adverse events in the buflomedil group and two events in the control group. In general, for each of these outcomes the quality of evidence was low according to the GRADE principles.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence on the efficacy or safety of buflomedil to support its use for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Given these uncertainties, the data support the rationale for an adequately powered RCT of buflomedil in people with acute ischaemic stroke.
Topics: Aged; China; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 26193704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009570.pub2 -
Heart, Lung & Circulation Mar 2022Polycythaemia vera (PV) is a condition that may potentially put patients undergoing cardiac surgery at an increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis; however, there is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Polycythaemia vera (PV) is a condition that may potentially put patients undergoing cardiac surgery at an increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis; however, there is currently a paucity of literature regarding the management of these patients. We aim to examine the literature in this systematic review to indicate the interventions that may be considered to minimise complications.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search using keywords and MeSH terms to identify articles discussing PV and cardiac surgery. The studies were identified and qualitatively analysed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol.
RESULTS
In total, 10 case reports representing 11 patients were identified for this systematic review and were included in qualitative analysis. 63.6% of patients had preoperative intermittent phlebotomy, and the majority of patients received postoperative therapy that involved one antiplatelet agent and one anticoagulant. Generous perioperative fluid management, phlebotomy, preservation of core body temperature, early extubation, monitoring of myocardial ischaemia, infarction and vascular events, intense chest physiotherapy and patient mobilisation are important to consider to reduce the risk of complications arising from surgery.
CONCLUSION
These considerations should be systematically discussed in a multidisciplinary team, where the acute surgical need can be balanced appropriately against the risk of haemorrhage and thrombosis.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Coronary Artery Bypass; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Polycythemia Vera; Thrombosis
PubMed: 34794873
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2021.10.012 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Feb 2022Evidence on the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin, alone or in combination with low-dose aspirin, for the prevention for preeclampsia in high-risk patients is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence on the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin, alone or in combination with low-dose aspirin, for the prevention for preeclampsia in high-risk patients is conflicting.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a meta-analysis of studies published to assess the effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of preeclampsia and other placenta-related complications in high-risk women.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was performed to identify relevant studies, using the databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without publication time restrictions.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (with or without low-dose aspirin), in high-risk women, defined as either history of preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, fetal demise, or miscarriage or being at high risk after first-trimester screening of preeclampsia.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. The primary outcome was the development of preeclampsia. We performed prespecified subgroup analyses according to combination with low-dose aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin type, gestational age when treatment was started, and study population (patients with thrombophilia, at high risk of preeclampsia or miscarriage). Secondary outcomes included small for gestational age, perinatal death, miscarriage, and placental abruption. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation methodology.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies (2795 participants) were included. In high-risk women, treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was associated with a reduction in the development of preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P=.010); small for gestational age (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.85; P=.003), and perinatal death (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.94; P=.030). This reduction was stronger if low-molecular-weight heparin was started before 16 weeks' gestation (13 studies, 2474 participants) for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.76; P=.0004). When only studies including low-dose aspirin as an intervention were analyzed (6 randomized controlled trials, 920 participants), a significant reduction was observed in those with combined treatment (low-molecular-weight heparin plus low-dose aspirin) compared with low-dose aspirin alone (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.95; P=.030). Overall, adverse events were neither serious nor significantly different. Quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, mostly because of the lack of blinding, imprecision, and inconsistency.
CONCLUSION
Low-molecular-weight heparin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of preeclampsia and other placenta-mediated complications in high-risk women and when treatment was started before 16 weeks' gestation. Combined treatment with low-dose aspirin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of preeclampsia compared with low-dose aspirin alone. However, there exists important clinical and statistical heterogeneity, and therefore, these results merit confirmation in large well-designed clinical trials.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fetal Growth Retardation; Gestational Age; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34301348
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.11.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; COVID-19; Venous Thromboembolism; Aspirin; Pulmonary Embolism
PubMed: 37591523
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015102.pub2 -
Stroke Sep 2017Optimal antiplatelet therapy after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack while on aspirin is uncertain. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Optimal antiplatelet therapy after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack while on aspirin is uncertain. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed (1966 to August 2016) and bibliographies of relevant published original studies to identify randomized trials and cohort studies reporting patients who were on aspirin at the time of an index ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and reported hazard ratio for major adverse cardiovascular events or recurrent stroke associated with a switch to or addition of another antiplatelet agent versus maintaining aspirin monotherapy. Estimates were combined using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Five studies with 8723 patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack were identified. Clopidogrel was used in 4 cohorts, and ticagrelor was used in 1 cohort. Pooling results showed that addition of or a switch to another antiplatelet agent, versus aspirin monotherapy, was associated with reduced risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.85) and recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.92). Each of the strategies of addition of and switching another antiplatelet agent showed benefit versus continued aspirin monotherapy, and studies with regimen initiation in the first days after index event showed more homogenous evidence of benefit.
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients who experience an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack while on aspirin monotherapy, the addition of or a switch to another antiplatelet agent, especially in the first days after index event, is associated with fewer future vascular events, including stroke.
Topics: Adenosine; Aspirin; Clopidogrel; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proportional Hazards Models; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Ticagrelor; Ticlopidine; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 28701574
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017895 -
The Journal of Urology Oct 2014Given the lack of urology specific directives for the periprocedural management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, the AUA (American Urological Association)... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Given the lack of urology specific directives for the periprocedural management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, the AUA (American Urological Association) and ICUD (International Consultation on Urological Disease) named an international multidisciplinary panel to develop consensus based recommendations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was queried by a methodologist for 3 questions. 1) When and in whom can anticoagulant/antiplatelet prophylaxis be stopped in preparation for surgery? 2) What procedures can be safely performed without discontinuing anticoagulant/antiplatelet prophylaxis? 3) What periprocedural strategies can adequately balance the risk of major surgical bleeding vs the risk of major thrombotic event? Hematology and cardiology guidelines, and 79 articles were selected for full review.
RESULTS
Multidisciplinary management of anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications for patients with recent thromboembolic events, mechanical cardiac valves, atrial fibrillation and cardiac stents would reduce the high morbidity and mortality of inexpertly discontinuing or modifying these lifesaving therapies. No elective procedures requiring interruption of dual antiplatelet therapies should be performed with a recent bare metal or drug eluting stent. The risk of significant bleeding complications is low for patients who require continuation of aspirin for ureteroscopy, transrectal prostate biopsies, laser prostate outlet procedures and percutaneous renal biopsy. Open extirpative prostate and renal procedures can be performed with a low risk of significant hemorrhage for patients on aspirin and those requiring heparin based bridging strategies. The current literature does not give direction on the timing of the resumption of anticoagulant/antiplatelet prophylaxis other than that it be resumed as soon as the risk of bleeding has decreased.
CONCLUSIONS
A total of 2,674 nonredundant article abstracts were obtained and assessed for relevance to key questions outlined by the panel. Overall 106 articles were selected for full text review and accepted or rejected based on the relation to the topic, quality of information and key questions. A total of 79 articles were accepted. Reasons for rejection (27 articles) included abstract only (12), insufficient information or unrelated to topic (13) and redundancy (2). We extracted study design, patient population, followup period and results from accepted articles, which serve as the evidence base.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Postoperative Complications; Thromboembolism; Urologic Diseases; Urologic Surgical Procedures; Urology
PubMed: 24859439
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.103