-
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Jan 2024There may be many predictors of anticoagulation-related gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
There may be many predictors of anticoagulation-related gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published. We conducted a systematic review to identify all risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB to inform risk prediction in the management of anticoagulation- related GIB.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception through January 21, 2022) using the following search terms: anticoagulants, heparin, warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, DOACs, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, risk factors. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies of risk factors for anticoagulation-related GIB were identified. Risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB were used as the outcome index of this review.
RESULTS
We included 34 studies in our analysis. For anticoagulant-associated GIB, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age, kidney disease, concomitant use of aspirin, concomitant use of the antiplatelet agent, heart failure, myocardial infarction, hematochezia, renal failure, coronary artery disease, helicobacter pylori infection, social risk factors, alcohol use, smoking, anemia, history of sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, international normalized ratio (INR), obesity et al. Some of these factors are not included in current GIB risk prediction models. such as anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction, etc.
CONCLUSION
The study found that anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction et al. were associated with anticoagulation-related GIB, and these factors were not in the existing prediction models. This study informs risk prediction for anticoagulant-associated GIB, it also informs guidelines for GIB prevention and future research.
Topics: Humans; Anemia; Anticoagulants; Diltiazem; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Gemfibrozil; Heart Failure; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Myocardial Infarction; Risk Factors; Verapamil
PubMed: 38062723
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2023.098 -
Hypertension in Pregnancy Dec 2024Preeclampsia (PE) is a pregnancy disorder that represents a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Preeclampsia (PE) is a pregnancy disorder that represents a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.
METHODS
This network meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO. We searched the PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov. and Embase databases for studies published from inception to the 31 of March 2023. RevMan5.3 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used for direct meta-analysis (DMA) statistical analysis. Funnel maps, network meta-analysis (NMA), the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank the different interventions and publication bias were generated by STATA 17.0 software.
RESULTS
We included eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a total of 1192 women with PE; two studies were of high quality and six were of moderate quality. Eight interventions were addressed in the NMA. In the DMA, we found that blood pressure in the Ketanserin group were significantly higher than those in the Nicardipine group. NMA showed that blood pressure in the Dihydralazine group was significantly higher than that in the Methyldopa, Labetalol, Nicardipine and Diltiazem groups. And the blood pressure in the Labetalol group was significantly lower than that in the Nicardipine group. SUCRA values showed that Diltiazem was more effective in lowering blood pressure than other drugs looked at in this study.
CONCLUSION
According to the eight RCTs included in this study, Diltiazem was the most effective in reducing blood pressure in PE patients; Labetalol and Nicardipine also had good effects. Diltiazem is preferred for the treatment of patients with severe PE and high blood pressure.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Labetalol; Pre-Eclampsia; Diltiazem; Nicardipine; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 38488570
DOI: 10.1080/10641955.2024.2329068 -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Jan 2024Atrial fibrillation (AF) and/or atrial flutter (AFL) with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is a condition that often requires urgent treatment. Although guidelines have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intravenous Diltiazem Versus Metoprolol in Acute Rate Control of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter and Rapid Ventricular Response: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Studies.
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and/or atrial flutter (AFL) with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is a condition that often requires urgent treatment. Although guidelines have recommendations regarding chronic rate control therapy, recommendations on the best choice for acute heart rate (HR) control in RVR are unclear.
METHODS
A systematic search across multiple databases was performed for studies evaluating the outcome of HR control (defined as HR less than 110 bpm and/or 20% decrease from baseline HR). Included studies evaluated AF and/or AFL with RVR in a hospital setting, with direct comparison between intravenous (IV) diltiazem and metoprolol and excluded cardiac surgery and catheter ablation patients. Hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg) was measured as a secondary outcome. Two authors performed full-text article review and extracted data, with a third author mediating disagreements. Random effects models utilizing inverse variance weighting were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I test.
RESULTS
A total of 563 unique titles were identified through the systematic search, of which 16 studies (7 randomized and 9 observational) were included. In our primary analysis of HR control by study type, IV diltiazem was found to be more effective than IV metoprolol for HR control in randomized trials (OR 4.75, 95% CI 2.50-9.04 with I = 14%); however, this was not found for observational studies (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.89-1.80 with I = 55%). In an analysis of observational studies, there were no significant differences between the two drugs in odds of hypotension (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.51-2.45 with I = 18%).
CONCLUSION
While there was a trend toward improved HR control with IV diltiazem compared with IV metoprolol in randomized trials, this was not seen in observational studies, and there was no observed difference in hypotension between the two drugs.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Diltiazem; Hypotension; Metoprolol; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37856044
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-023-00615-3 -
Cureus Mar 2024This study aims to assess the association between intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol in rate control for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with rapid ventricular rate,... (Review)
Review
This study aims to assess the association between intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol in rate control for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with rapid ventricular rate, focusing on rate control efficacy and hemodynamic adverse events. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, electronic searches were conducted in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until February 20, 2024. The primary outcome was achieving ventricular rate control < 110/min. Secondary outcomes included new hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) and bradycardia (heart rate < 60/min). Nineteen studies (three randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed intravenous metoprolol resulted in a 39% lower rate control attainment compared to diltiazem (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.84; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in bradycardia (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.22; p = 0.13) or hypotension risk (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.61; p = 0.72) between the two groups. Intravenous diltiazem demonstrated superior rate control efficacy compared to metoprolol in AF patients with rapid ventricular rate. However, no significant differences were observed in safety outcomes, namely, bradycardia and hypotension.
PubMed: 38646329
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56560 -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Jun 2024Intravenous beta-blockers are commonly used to manage patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFl), but the choice of specific agent is often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of intravenous beta-blockers in acute atrial fibrillation and flutter is dependent on beta-1 selectivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.
BACKGROUND
Intravenous beta-blockers are commonly used to manage patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFl), but the choice of specific agent is often not evidence-based.
METHODS
A prospectively-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (PROSPERO: CRD42020204772) to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous beta-blockers against alternative pharmacological agents.
RESULTS
Twelve trials comparing beta-blockers with diltiazem, digoxin, verapamil, anti-arrhythmic drugs and placebo were included, with variable risk of bias and 1152 participants. With high heterogeneity (I = 87%; p < 0.001), there was no difference in the primary outcomes of heart rate reduction (standardised mean difference - 0.65 beats/minute compared to control, 95% CI - 1.63 to 0.32; p = 0.19) or the proportion that achieved target heart rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-1.97; p = 0.70). Conventional selective beta-1 blockers were inferior for target heart rate reduction versus control (RR 0.33, 0.17-0.64; p < 0.001), whereas super-selective beta-1 blockers were superior (RR 1.98, 1.54-2.54; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between beta-blockers and comparators for secondary outcomes of conversion to sinus rhythm (RR 1.15, 0.90-1.46; p = 0.28), hypotension (RR 1.85, 0.87-3.93; p = 0.11), bradycardia (RR 1.29, 0.25-6.82; p = 0.76) or adverse events leading to drug discontinuation (RR 1.03, 0.49-2.17; p = 0.93). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were greater with non-selective beta-blockers (p = 0.031 and p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Across all intravenous beta-blockers, there was no difference with other medications for acute heart rate control in atrial fibrillation and flutter. Efficacy and safety may be improved by choosing beta-blockers with higher beta-1 selectivity.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Heart Rate; Treatment Outcome; Acute Disease; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Administration, Intravenous; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
PubMed: 37658166
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-023-02295-0 -
Drugs - Real World Outcomes Jun 2024Multimorbidity is common in hospitalised adults who are at increased risk of inappropriate prescribing including drug-disease interactions. These interactions occur when...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Multimorbidity is common in hospitalised adults who are at increased risk of inappropriate prescribing including drug-disease interactions. These interactions occur when a medicine being used to treat one condition exacerbates a concurrent medical condition and may lead to adverse health outcomes. The aim of this review was to examine the association between drug-disease interactions and the risk of mortality and readmission in hospitalised middle-aged and older adults.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted on drug-disease interactions in hospitalised middle-aged (45-64 years) and older adults (≥65 years). The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42022341998). Drug-disease interactions were defined as a medicine being used to treat one condition with the potential to exacerbate a concurrent medical condition or that were inappropriate based on a comorbid medical condition. Both observational and interventional studies were included. The outcomes of interest were mortality and readmissions. The databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library from inception to 12 July, 2022. A meta-analysis was performed to pool risk estimates using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 563 studies were identified and four met the inclusion criteria. All were observational studies in older adults, with no studies identified in middle-aged adults. Most of the studies were at risk of bias because of an inadequate adjustment for covariates and a lack of clarity around individuals lost to follow-up. There were various definitions of drug-disease interactions within these four studies. Two studies assessed drugs that were contraindicated based on renal function, one assessed an individual drug-disease combination, and one was based on the clinical judgement of a pharmacist. There were two studies that showed an association between drug-disease interactions and the outcomes of interest. One reported that the use of diltiazem in patients with heart failure was associated with an increased risk of readmissions. The second reported that the use of medicines contraindicated according to renal function were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and a composite of mortality and readmission. Three of the studies (total study population = 5705) were amenable to a meta-analysis, which showed no significant association between drug-disease interactions and readmissions (odds ratio = 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.38).
CONCLUSIONS
Few studies were identified examining the risk of drug-disease interactions and mortality and readmission in hospitalised adults. Most of the identified studies were at risk of bias. There is no universal accepted definition of drug-disease interactions in the literature. Further studies are needed to develop a standardised and accepted definition of these interactions to guide further research in this area.
PubMed: 38852118
DOI: 10.1007/s40801-024-00432-3