-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Oct 2023: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients. Anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients. Anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dalteparin and apixaban, have demonstrated efficacy and safety. However, more comparative research of these drugs is still needed. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of apixaban compared to dalteparin in reducing recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding associated with cancer. : We systematically searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials databases up to 5 January 2023, for randomized controlled trials comparing apixaban versus dalteparin as treatment for cancer-associated VTE. Five studies were included. Effects according to meta-analyses were reported as relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). : It was found that 33 of 734 (4.5%) patients treated with apixaban and 56 of 767 (7.3%) with dalteparin had recurrent VTE as the efficacy outcome (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15-1.58, I 38%). Major bleeding occurred in 25 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (3.4%) and 27 of 767 with dalteparin (3.5%) (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31-5.27, I 59%). Likewise, clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 64 of 734 patients treated with apixaban (8.7%) and 46 of 767 (5.9%) with dalteparin (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.19, I 0%). : Apixaban showed a lower risk of recurrent VTE than dalteparin in patients with cancer-associated VTE, albeit with no statistical difference. Statistical significance was observed for no major clinically relevant bleeding but not for major bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Dalteparin; Venous Thromboembolism; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37893585
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59101867 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2024To systematically evaluate the efficacy of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to prevent preeclampsia in high risk pregnant women without thrombophilia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the efficacy of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to prevent preeclampsia in high risk pregnant women without thrombophilia.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched for articles published before 1st August 2022 using the combination keywords "preeclampsia", "Low Molecular Weight Heparin", "LMWH", "Heparin, Low Molecular Weight", "Dalteparin", "Nadroparin", and "Tinzaparin".
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of LMWH in pregnant women at high risk of preeclampsia without thrombophilia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis (1758 patients in total). Outcomes were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
LMWH reduced the incidence of PE (RR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.50-0.90; P = 0.009) in high risk pregnant women without thrombophilia. Subgroup analysis found that the prophylactic effect of LMWH was only significant in studies using low-dose aspirin (LDA) as the primary intervention. The combination of LMWH and LDA was also effective for the prevention of preterm birth and fetal growth restriction, but had no effect on the incidence of placenta abruption.
CONCLUSION
For women at high risk of developing preeclampsia without thrombophilia, the combination of LMWH and low-dose aspirin is effective for the prevention of preeclampsia, preterm birth and fetal growth restriction and is superior to LDA alone.
Topics: Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Pregnancy; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy, High-Risk; Premature Birth; Fetal Growth Retardation; Aspirin; Heparin; Nadroparin; Thrombophilia; Anticoagulants
PubMed: 38233773
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-06218-9 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2024This systematic review addresses the crucial role of anticoagulation in microsurgical procedures, focusing on free flap reconstruction and replantation surgeries. The... (Review)
Review
This systematic review addresses the crucial role of anticoagulation in microsurgical procedures, focusing on free flap reconstruction and replantation surgeries. The objective was to balance the prevention of thrombotic complications commonly leading to flap failure, with the risk of increased bleeding complications associated with anticoagulant use. A meticulous PubMed literature search following Evidence-Based-Practice principles yielded 79 relevant articles, including both clinical and animal studies. The full-texts were carefully reviewed and evaluated by the modified Coleman methodology score. Clinical studies revealed diverse perioperative regimens, primarily based on aspirin, heparin, and dextran. Meta-analyses demonstrated similar flap loss rates with heparin or aspirin. High doses of dalteparin or heparin, however, correlated with higher flap loss rates than low dose administration. Use of dextran is not recommended due to severe systemic complications. In animal studies, systemic heparin administration showed predominantly favorable results, while topical application and intraluminal irrigation consistently exhibited significant benefits in flap survival. The insights from this conducted systematic review serve as a foundational pillar towards the establishment of evidence-based guidelines for anticoagulation in microsurgery. An average Coleman score of 55 (maximum 103), indicating low overall study quality, however, emphasizes the need for large multi-institutional, randomized-clinical trials as the next vital step.
PubMed: 38255697
DOI: 10.3390/life14010082 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jan 2024There was an error in the original publication [...].
Correction: Arce-Huamani et al. Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban versus Dalteparin as a Treatment for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2023, , 1867.
There was an error in the original publication [...].
PubMed: 38256435
DOI: 10.3390/medicina60010134