-
Journal of the American College of... Dec 2022Healthy dietary patterns are rich in micronutrients, but their influence on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks has not been systematically quantified.
BACKGROUND
Healthy dietary patterns are rich in micronutrients, but their influence on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks has not been systematically quantified.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive and most up-to-date evidence-based map that systematically quantifies the impact of micronutrients on CVD outcomes.
METHODS
This study comprised a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled intervention trials of micronutrients on CVD risk factors and clinical events.
RESULTS
A total of 884 randomized controlled intervention trials evaluating 27 types of micronutrients among 883,627 participants (4,895,544 person-years) were identified. Supplementation with n-3 fatty acid, n-6 fatty acid, l-arginine, l-citrulline, folic acid, vitamin D, magnesium, zinc, α-lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein, and quercetin showed moderate- to high-quality evidence for reducing CVD risk factors. Specifically, n-3 fatty acid supplementation decreased CVD mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.97), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.78-0.92), and coronary heart disease events (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.80-0.93). Folic acid supplementation decreased stroke risk (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97), and coenzyme Q10 supplementation decreased all-cause mortality events (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49-0.94). Vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium showed no effect on CVD or type 2 diabetes risk. β-carotene supplementation increased all-cause mortality (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.05-1.15), CVD mortality events (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06-1.18), and stroke risk (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17).
CONCLUSIONS
Supplementation of some but not all micronutrients may benefit cardiometabolic health. This study highlights the importance of micronutrient diversity and the balance of benefits and risks to promote and maintain cardiovascular health in diverse populations. (Antioxidant Supplementation in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases; CRD42022315165).
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Risk Factors; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Vitamin D; Folic Acid; Stroke
PubMed: 36480969
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.09.048 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Mar 2023Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about cardiovascular complications following the mRNA vaccination. This study provides an in-depth account of various cardiovascular adverse events reported after the mRNA vaccines' first or second dose including pericarditis/myopericarditis, myocarditis, hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, stroke, myocardial infarction/STEMI, intracranial hemorrhage, thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis, arterial or venous thrombotic events, portal vein thrombosis, coronary thrombosis, microvascular small bowel thrombosis), and pulmonary embolism.
METHODS
A systematic review of original studies reporting confirmed cardiovascular manifestations post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was performed. Following the PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases (PubMed, PMC NCBI, and Cochrane Library) were searched until January 2022. Baseline characteristics of patients and disease outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.
RESULTS
A total of 81 articles analyzed confirmed cardiovascular complications post-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in 17,636 individuals and reported 284 deaths with any mRNA vaccine. Of 17,636 cardiovascular events with any mRNA vaccine, 17,192 were observed with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, 444 events with mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Thrombosis was frequently reported with any mRNA vaccine (n = 13,936), followed by stroke (n = 758), myocarditis (n = 511), myocardial infarction (n = 377), pulmonary embolism (n = 301), and arrhythmia (n = 254). Stratifying the results by vaccine type showed that thrombosis (80.8%) was common in the BNT162b2 cohort, while stroke (39.9%) was common with mRNA-1273 for any dose. The time between the vaccination dosage and the first symptom onset averaged 5.6 and 4.8 days with the mRNA-1273 vaccine and BNT162b2, respectively. The mRNA-1273 cohort reported 56 deaths compared to the 228 with BNT162b2, while the rest were discharged or transferred to the ICU.
CONCLUSION
Available literature includes more studies with the BNT162b2 vaccine than mRNA-1273. Future studies must report mortality and adverse cardiovascular events by vaccine types.
Topics: Humans; 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273; BNT162 Vaccine; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Myocardial Infarction; Myocarditis; Pulmonary Embolism; Stroke; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombosis
PubMed: 36988252
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.807 -
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica Jan 2022Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is caused by partial or complete occlusion of the major cerebral venous sinuses or the smaller feeding cortical veins which predispose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is caused by partial or complete occlusion of the major cerebral venous sinuses or the smaller feeding cortical veins which predispose to the risk of venous infarction and hemorrhage. Current guidelines recommend treating CVT with either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) followed by an oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for 3-12 months. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have already established benefit over warfarin as a long-term treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolic disorder like deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) given its equal efficacy and better safety profile. The benefit of DOACs over warfarin as a long-term anticoagulation for CVT has likewise been extensively studied, yet it has not been approved as first-line therapy in the current practice. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies to generate robust evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of DOACs in CVT. This meta-analysis demonstrates that the use of DOACs in CVT has similar efficacy and safety compared to VKAs with better recanalization rate.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 34287841
DOI: 10.1111/ane.13506 -
Intensive Care Medicine Dec 2016Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed updated to December 2015. Thirteen studies were included of which nine included cardiac arrest patients (n = 3098) and four included patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (n = 235). Data were pooled by a Mantel-Haenzel random effects model and heterogeneity was examined by the I statistic.
RESULTS
In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an absolute increase of 30 days survival of 13 % compared with patients in which ECLS was not used [95 % CI 6-20 %; p < 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) 7.7] and a higher rate of favourable neurological outcome at 30 days (absolute risk difference 14 %; 95 % CI 7-20 %; p < 0.0001; NNT 7.1). Propensity matched analysis, including 5 studies and 438 patients (219 in both groups), showed similar results. In cardiogenic shock, ECLS showed a 33 % higher 30-day survival compared with IABP (95 % CI, 14-52 %; p < 0.001; NNT 13) but no difference when compared with TandemHeart/Impella (-3 %; 95 % CI -21 to 14 %; p = 0.70; NNH 33).
CONCLUSIONS
In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome. In the setting of cardiogenic shock there was an increased survival with ECLS compared with IABP.
Topics: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Female; Heart Arrest; Humans; Male; Retrospective Studies; Shock, Cardiogenic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27647331
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8 -
Circulation Mar 2024Device-detected atrial fibrillation (also known as subclinical atrial fibrillation or atrial high-rate episodes) is a common finding in patients with an implanted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Device-detected atrial fibrillation (also known as subclinical atrial fibrillation or atrial high-rate episodes) is a common finding in patients with an implanted cardiac rhythm device and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. Whether oral anticoagulation is effective and safe in this patient population is unclear.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase for randomized trials comparing oral anticoagulation with antiplatelet or no antithrombotic therapy in adults with device-detected atrial fibrillation recorded by a pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy device, or implanted cardiac monitor. We used random-effects models for meta-analysis and rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework (GRADE). The review was preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42023463212).
RESULTS
From 785 citations, we identified 2 randomized trials with relevant clinical outcome data: NOAH-AFNET 6 (Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial High Rate Episodes; 2536 participants) evaluated edoxaban, and ARTESiA (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation; 4012 participants) evaluated apixaban. Meta-analysis demonstrated that oral anticoagulation with these agents reduced ischemic stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.92]; high-quality evidence). The results from the 2 trials were consistent (I statistic for heterogeneity=0%). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]; I=0%; moderate-quality evidence). There was no reduction in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.17]; I=0%; moderate-quality evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.96-1.21]; I=0%; moderate-quality evidence). Oral anticoagulation increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.05-2.50]; I²=61%; high-quality evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA trials are consistent with each other. Meta-analysis of these 2 large randomized trials provides high-quality evidence that oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of stroke in patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation and increases the risk of major bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Embolism; Hemorrhage; Ischemic Stroke; Pyridines; Stroke; Thiazoles; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37952187
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067512 -
Health Technology Assessment... Mar 2017Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.
BACKGROUND
Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE.
DESIGN
Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials.
SETTING
Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention).
PARTICIPANTS
Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE).
INTERVENTIONS
NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models.
RESULTS
Apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication.
CONCLUSIONS
NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE.
LIMITATIONS
These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs.
FUTURE WORK
Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Age Distribution; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Blood Pressure; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Electrocardiography; Female; Humans; Male; Markov Chains; Mass Screening; Models, Econometric; Network Meta-Analysis; Observational Studies as Topic; Primary Health Care; Pulse; Secondary Prevention; Sensitivity and Specificity; State Medicine; Stroke; United Kingdom; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 28279251
DOI: 10.3310/hta21090 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Dec 2022To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
SOURCE
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis and searched six databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We evaluated inotropes, vasopressors, and MCS in separate networks. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to rate the certainty in findings. The critical outcome of interest was 30-day all-cause mortality.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We included 17 RCTs. Among inotropes (seven RCTs, 1,145 patients), levosimendan probably reduces mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.87; moderate certainty), but primarily in lower severity shock. Milrinone (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.39; low certainty) and dobutamine (OR, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.49; low certainty) may have no effect on mortality compared with placebo. With regard to MCS (eight RCTs, 856 patients), there may be no effect on mortality with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28; low certainty) or percutaneous MCS (pMCS) (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.98; low certainty), compared with a strategy involving no MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with less major bleeding compared with pMCS. We found only two RCTs evaluating vasopressors, yielding insufficient data for meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
The results of this systematic review and network meta-analysis indicate that levosimendan reduces mortality compared with placebo among patients with low severity cardiogenic shock. Intra-aortic balloon pump and pMCS had no effect on mortality compared with a strategy of no MCS, but pMCS was associated with higher rates of major bleeding.
STUDY REGISTRATION
Center for Open Science ( https://osf.io/ky2gr ); registered 10 November 2020.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Shock, Cardiogenic; Network Meta-Analysis; Simendan; Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping; Myocardial Infarction; Hemorrhage; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36195825
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-022-02337-7 -
The European Respiratory Journal Feb 2023Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves clinical symptoms and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reduces exacerbation risk. However, there is a growing concern that LAMA/LABA therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the use of LAMA/LABA combination therapy modifies the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs of LAMA/LABA or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of patients with COPD that reported on cardiovascular end-points. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke.
RESULTS
A total of 51 RCTs enrolling 91 021 subjects were analysed. Both dual LAMA/LABA (1.6% 1.3%; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.81) and triple therapy (1.6% 1.4%; relative risk 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61) significantly increased the risk of MACE compared with ICS/LABA. The excess risk was most evident in RCTs in which the average underlying baseline risk for MACE was >1% per year. Compared with LAMA only, LABA only or placebo, dual LAMA/LABA therapy did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, though these comparisons may have lacked sufficient statistical power.
CONCLUSION
Compared with ICS/LABA, dual LAMA/LABA or triple therapy increases cardiovascular risk in patients with COPD. This should be considered in the context of the incremental benefits of these therapies for symptoms and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD, especially in those with a MACE risk of >1% per year.
Topics: Humans; Bronchodilator Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Administration, Inhalation; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Muscarinic Antagonists; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Drug Therapy, Combination; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists
PubMed: 36137586
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00302-2022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Evidence from systematic reviews of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence from systematic reviews of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in post-menopausal women, however the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have had mixed results. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hormone therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, and whether there are differential effects between use in primary or secondary prevention. Secondary aims were to undertake exploratory analyses to (i) assess the impact of time since menopause that treatment was commenced (≥ 10 years versus < 10 years), and where these data were not available, use age of trial participants at baseline as a proxy (≥ 60 years of age versus < 60 years of age); and (ii) assess the effects of length of time on treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 25 February 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We also searched research and trials registers, and conducted reference checking of relevant studies and related systematic reviews to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of women comparing orally administered hormone therapy with placebo or a no treatment control, with a minimum of six months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. We combined results using random effects meta-analyses, and undertook further analyses to assess the effects of treatment as primary or secondary prevention, and whether treatment was commenced more than or less than 10 years after menopause.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six new trials through this update. Therefore the review includes 19 trials with a total of 40,410 post-menopausal women. On the whole, study quality was good and generally at low risk of bias; the findings are dominated by the three largest trials. We found high quality evidence that hormone therapy in both primary and secondary prevention conferred no protective effects for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, or revascularisation. However, there was an increased risk of stroke in those in the hormone therapy arm for combined primary and secondary prevention (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41). Venous thromboembolic events were increased (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.69), as were pulmonary emboli (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.48) on hormone therapy relative to placebo.The absolute risk increase for stroke was 6 per 1000 women (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 165; mean length of follow-up: 4.21 years (range: 2.0 to 7.1)); for venous thromboembolism 8 per 1000 women (NNTH = 118; mean length of follow-up: 5.95 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)); and for pulmonary embolism 4 per 1000 (NNTH = 242; mean length of follow-up: 3.13 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)).We performed subgroup analyses according to when treatment was started in relation to the menopause. Those who started hormone therapy less than 10 years after the menopause had lower mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence) and coronary heart disease (composite of death from cardiovascular causes and non-fatal myocardial infarction) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence), though they were still at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.73, high quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. There was no strong evidence of effect on risk of stroke in this group. In those who started treatment more than 10 years after the menopause there was high quality evidence that it had little effect on death or coronary heart disease between groups but there was an increased risk of stroke (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.38, high quality evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.80, high quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review findings provide strong evidence that treatment with hormone therapy in post-menopausal women overall, for either primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events has little if any benefit and causes an increase in the risk of stroke and venous thromboembolic events.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Middle Aged; Postmenopause; Primary Prevention; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 25754617
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002229.pub4 -
JAMA Surgery Apr 2021Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an efficient antifibrinolytic agent; however, concerns remain about the potential adverse effects, particularly vascular occlusive events, that...
IMPORTANCE
Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an efficient antifibrinolytic agent; however, concerns remain about the potential adverse effects, particularly vascular occlusive events, that may be associated with its use.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the association between intravenous TXA and total thromboembolic events (TEs) and mortality in patients of all ages and of any medical disciplines.
DATA SOURCE
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE were searched for eligible studies investigating intravenous TXA and postinterventional outcome published between 1976 and 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing intravenous TXA with placebo/no treatment. The electronic database search yielded a total of 782 studies, and 381 were considered for full-text review. Included studies were published in English, German, French, and Spanish. Studies with only oral or topical tranexamic administration were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Meta-analysis, subgroup and sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression were performed. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Vascular occlusive events and mortality.
RESULTS
A total of 216 eligible trials including 125 550 patients were analyzed. Total TEs were found in 1020 (2.1%) in the group receiving TXA and 900 (2.0%) in the control group. This study found no association between TXA and risk for total TEs (risk difference = 0.001; 95% CI, -0.001 to 0.002; P = .49) for venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous TEs, myocardial infarction or ischemia, and cerebral infarction or ischemia. Sensitivity analysis using the risk ratio as an effect measure with (risk ratio = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11; P = .56) and without (risk ratio = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.12; P = .52) studies with double-zero events revealed robust effect size estimates. Sensitivity analysis with studies judged at low risk for selection bias showed similar results. Administration of TXA was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality and bleeding mortality but not with nonbleeding mortality. In addition, an increased risk for vascular occlusive events was not found in studies including patients with a history of thromboembolism. Comparison of studies with sample sizes of less than or equal to 99 (risk difference = 0.004; 95% CI, -0.006 to 0.014; P = .40), 100 to 999 (risk difference = 0.004; 95% CI, -0.003 to 0.011; P = .26), and greater than or equal to 1000 (risk difference = -0.001; 95% CI, -0.003 to 0.001; P = .44) showed no association between TXA and incidence of total TEs. Meta-regression of 143 intervention groups showed no association between TXA dosing and risk for venous TEs (risk difference, -0.005; 95% CI, -0.021 to 0.011; P = .53).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis of 216 studies suggested that intravenous TXA, irrespective of dosing, is not associated with increased risk of any TE. These results help clarify the incidence of adverse events associated with administration of intravenous TXA and suggest that TXA is safe for use with undetermined utility for patients receiving neurological care.
PubMed: 33851983
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0884