-
ASAIO Journal (American Society For... Mar 2021Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) causes both thrombosis and bleeding. Major society guidelines recommend continuous, systemic anticoagulation to prevent...
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) causes both thrombosis and bleeding. Major society guidelines recommend continuous, systemic anticoagulation to prevent thrombosis of the ECMO circuit, though this may be undesirable in those with active, or high risk of, bleeding. We aimed to systematically review thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in published cases of adults treated with ECMO without continuous systemic anticoagulation. Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and CDSR, and hand search via SCOPUS were queried. Eligible studies were independently reviewed by two blinded authors if they reported adults (≥18 years) treated with either VV- or VA-ECMO without continuous systemic anticoagulation for ≥24 hours. Patient demographics, clinical data, and specifics of ECMO technology and treatment parameters were collected. Primary outcomes of interest included incidence of bleeding, thrombosis of the ECMO circuit requiring equipment exchange, patient venous or arterial thrombosis, ability to wean off of ECMO, and mortality. Of the 443 total publications identified, 34 describing 201 patients met our inclusion criteria. Most patients were treated for either acute respiratory distress syndrome or cardiogenic shock. The median duration of anticoagulant-free ECMO was 4.75 days. ECMO circuity thrombosis and patient thrombosis occurred in 27 (13.4%) and 19 (9.5%) patients, respectively. Any bleeding and major or "severe" bleeding was reported in 66 (32.8%) and 56 (27.9%) patients, respectively. Forty patients (19%) died. While limited by primarily retrospective data and inconsistent reporting of outcomes, our systematic review of anticoagulant-free ECMO reveals an incidence of circuity and patient thrombosis comparable to patients receiving continuous systemic anticoagulation while on ECMO.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Thrombosis
PubMed: 33627603
DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001230 -
American Journal of Hematology Jul 2021The effectiveness and safety of non-heparin anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) are not fully established, and the optimal... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness and safety of non-heparin anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) are not fully established, and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to determine precise rates of platelet recovery, new or progressive thromboembolism (TE), major bleeding, and death for all non-heparin anticoagulants and to study potential sources of variability.
METHODS
Following a detailed protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020219027), EMBASE and Medline were searched for all studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients treated with non-heparin anticoagulants (argatroban, danaparoid, fondaparinux, direct oral anticoagulants [DOAC], bivalirudin, and other hirudins) for acute HIT. Proportions of patients with the outcomes of interest were pooled using a random-effects model for each drug. The influence of the patient population, the diagnostic test used, the study design, and the type of article was assessed.
RESULTS
Out of 3194 articles screened, 92 studies with 119 treatment groups describing 4698 patients were included. The pooled rates of platelet recovery ranged from 74% (bivalirudin) to 99% (fondaparinux), TE from 1% (fondaparinux) to 7% (danaparoid), major bleeding from 1% (DOAC) to 14% (bivalirudin), and death from 7% (fondaparinux) to 19% (bivalirudin). Confidence intervals were mostly overlapping, and results were not influenced by patient population, diagnostic test used, study design, or type of article.
DISCUSSION
Effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar among various anticoagulants, and significant factors affecting these outcomes were not identified. These findings support fondaparinux and DOACs as viable alternatives to conventional anticoagulants for treatment of acute HIT in clinical practice.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Blood Platelets; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Humans; Thrombocytopenia; Thromboembolism; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33857342
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26194 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Apr 2021BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis patients... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis patients are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs and warfarin in patients with CKD requiring anticoagulation therapy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies, with the inclusion criteria being a comparative study between DOACs and warfarin in patients with CKD or dialysis patients from database inception until August 2020. The efficacy outcomes were stroke, systemic embolism (SE), or venous thromboembolism (VTE), and the safety outcome was major bleeding.
RESULTS
Compared with warfarin, DOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke/SE/VTE by 22% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.95) and major bleeding by 17% (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.97). On comparing factor Xa inhibitors and dabigatran with warfarin separately, factor Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of stroke/SE/VTE (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98) and major bleeding (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91) overall in patients. Comparing each DOACs with warfarin separately, apixaban was associated with a significantly better risk reduction of stroke/SE/VTE (25% risk reduction) and major bleeding (35% risk reduction) than warfarin. Compared with warfarin, DOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke, SE, or VTE by 19% (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97) in patients with CKD stage 3 and significantly lowered the risk of major bleeding by 31% (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85) in patients with CKD stages 4-5.
CONCLUSIONS
In pooled, analyzed randomized controlled trials and observational studies, DOACs were associated with better efficacy in early CKD, as well as similar efficacy and safety outcomes to warfarin in patients with CKD stages 4-5 or dialysis patients. The results of patients with CKD stages 4-5 and dialysis patients were from observational studies. Well-designed randomized controlled trials focused on DOAC use in patients with CKD and dialysis patients are needed. PROSPERO register number: CRD42020150599, 6 February, 2020.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Dabigatran; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 33709339
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-021-01016-7 -
The Lancet. Oncology Oct 2019Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at a high risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding during...
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at a high risk of VTE recurrence and bleeding during anticoagulant therapy. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer is an independent academic working group aimed at establishing a global consensus for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer. The International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer last updated its evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in 2016 with a free, web-based mobile phone application, which was subsequently endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer clinical practice guidelines, which are based on a systematic review of the literature published up to December, 2018, are presented along with a Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation scale methods, with the support of the French National Cancer Institute. These guidelines were reviewed by an expanded international advisory committee and endorsed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Results from head-to-head clinical trials that compared direct oral anticoagulant with low-molecular-weight heparin are also summarised, along with new evidence for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE in patients with cancer.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Central Venous Catheters; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Fondaparinux; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Vena Cava Filters; Venous Thromboembolism; Vitamin K
PubMed: 31492632
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30336-5 -
Chest May 2023The management of patients who are receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy and require an elective surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical scenario. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The management of patients who are receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy and require an elective surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical scenario.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is the best available evidence to support the development of American College of Chest Physicians guidelines on the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term vitamin K agonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and require elective surgery or procedures?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
A literature search including multiple databases from database inception through July 16, 2020, was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate.
RESULTS
In patients receiving VKA (warfarin) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, shorter (< 3 days) VKA interruption is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding. In patients who required VKA interruption, heparin bridging (mostly with low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of major bleed, representing a very low certainty of evidence (COE). Compared with DOAC interruption 1 to 4 days before surgery, continuing DOACs may be associated with higher risk of bleeding demonstrated in some, but not all studies. In patients who needed DOAC interruption, bridging with LMWH may be associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding, representing a low COE.
INTERPRETATION
The certainty in the evidence supporting the perioperative management of anticoagulants remains limited. No high-quality evidence exists to support the practice of heparin bridging during the interruption of VKA or DOAC therapy for an elective surgery or procedure, or for the practice of interrupting VKA therapy for minor procedures, including cardiac device implantation, or continuation of a DOAC vs short-term interruption of a DOAC in the perioperative period.
Topics: Humans; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Anticoagulants; Heparin; Warfarin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Vitamin K; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 36462533
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.11.032 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence). For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Antithrombins; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Rivaroxaban; Dabigatran; Venous Thromboembolism; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Venous Thrombosis; Pulmonary Embolism; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 37058421
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010956.pub3 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2019To determine the rate of a first recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) event after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first episode of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Long term risk of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment for first unprovoked venous thromboembolism event: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the rate of a first recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) event after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE, and the cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE up to 10 years.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 15 March 2019).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies reporting symptomatic recurrent VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first unprovoked VTE event who had completed at least three months of treatment.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Data clarifications were sought from authors of eligible studies. Recurrent VTE events and person years of follow-up after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment were used to calculate rates for individual studies, and data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Sex and site of initial VTE were investigated as potential sources of between study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
18 studies involving 7515 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment was 10.3 events (95% confidence interval 8.6 to 12.1) in the first year, 6.3 (5.1 to 7.7) in the second year, 3.8 events/year (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 4.5) in years 3-5, and 3.1 events/year (1.7 to 4.9) in years 6-10. The cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE was 16% (95% confidence interval 13% to 19%) at 2 years, 25% (21% to 29%) at 5 years, and 36% (28% to 45%) at 10 years. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years in the first year was 11.9 events (9.6 to 14.4) for men and 8.9 events (6.8 to 11.3) for women, with a cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE of 41% (28% to 56%) and 29% (20% to 38%), respectively, at 10 years. Compared to patients with isolated pulmonary embolism, the rate of recurrent VTE was higher in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis (rate ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.7) and in patients with pulmonary embolism plus deep vein thrombosis (1.5, 1.1 to 1.9). In patients with distal deep vein thrombosis, the pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years was 1.9 events (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 4.3) in the first year after anticoagulation had stopped. The case fatality rate for recurrent VTE was 4% (95% confidence interval 2% to 6%).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE who completed at least three months of anticoagulant treatment, the risk of recurrent VTE was 10% in the first year after treatment, 16% at two years, 25% at five years, and 36% at 10 years, with 4% of recurrent VTE events resulting in death. These estimates should inform clinical practice guidelines, enhance confidence in counselling patients of their prognosis, and help guide decision making about long term management of unprovoked VTE.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017056309.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Humans; Recurrence; Risk Assessment; Time; Venous Thromboembolism; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 31340984
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4363 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is the second update of the review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis compared to single modalities in preventing VTE.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE compared to either intervention individually.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected studies, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were PE, DVT, bleeding and major bleeding.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 34 studies involving 14,931 participants, mainly undergoing surgery or admitted with trauma. Twenty-five studies were RCTs (12,672 participants) and nine were CCTs (2259 participants). Overall, the risk of bias was mostly unclear or high. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence and this was downgraded due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC compared with IPC alone reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 1.34% (34/2530) in the IPC group to 0.65% (19/2932) in the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; 19 studies, 5462 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 3.81% in the IPC group and 2.03% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; 18 studies, 5394 participants, low-certainty evidence). The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone: 0.95% (22/2304) in the IPC group and 5.88% (137/2330) in the combined group (OR 6.02, 95% CI 3.88 to 9.35; 13 studies, 4634 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern: 0.34% (7/2054) in the IPC group compared to 2.21% (46/2079) in the combined group (OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.81 to 11.83; 12 studies, 4133 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Tests for subgroup differences between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants were not possible for PE incidence as no PE events were reported in the orthopaedic subgroup. No difference was detected between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.19). The use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone reduced the incidence of PE from 1.84% (61/3318) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group to 0.91% (31/3419) in the combined group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.71; 15 studies, 6737 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 9.28% (288/3105) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 5.48% (167/3046) in the combined group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; 17 studies; 6151 participants, high-certainty evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (any bleeding: OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.35, 6 studies, 1314 participants, very low-certainty evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, 5 studies, 908 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No difference was detected between the orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for PE incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.82) or for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.69).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to IPC alone reduces the incidence of both PE and DVT (low-certainty evidence). Combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, reduces the incidence of both PE (low-certainty evidence) and DVT (high-certainty evidence). We downgraded due to risk of bias in study methodology and imprecision. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed when IPC is added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low-certainty evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The certainty of the evidence for bleeding was downgraded to very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, imprecision and indirectness. The results of this update agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised people (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed to provide evidence for specific patient groups and to increase our certainty in the evidence.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Leg; Pulmonary Embolism; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35089599
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005258.pub4 -
Journal of Hematology & Oncology May 2022International clinical practice guidelines have progressively endorsed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Direct oral anticoagulant versus low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: 2022 updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
International clinical practice guidelines have progressively endorsed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) monotherapy for the initial and long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently reported additional results on the safety and efficacy of DOACs in this setting. We performed an updated meta-analysis of all publicly available data from RCTs comparing DOACs with LMWHs for the treatment of CAT. Six RCTs enrolling 3690 patients with CAT were included. Compared with LMWHs, DOACs significantly decreased the risk of CAT recurrence (RR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.52-0.85), with a non-significant increase in the risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.17; 95%CI, 0.82-1.67), a significant increase in the risk of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (RR 1.66; 95%CI, 1.31-2.09) and no difference in all-cause mortality rates. These results increase the level of certainty of available evidence supporting the use of DOACs as an effective and safe option for the treatment of CAT in selected cancer patients.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35598026
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-022-01289-1 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Jun 2021To evaluate how treatment with DOACs for VTE affects thrombosis and bleeding outcomes compared to warfarin in CKD and dialysis patients.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate how treatment with DOACs for VTE affects thrombosis and bleeding outcomes compared to warfarin in CKD and dialysis patients.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search was conducted for studies evaluating VTE and bleeding outcomes with DOAC use in CKD and dialysis patients. Searches conducted through EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to September 22, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series with ≥10 patients included.
DATA SYNTHESIS
From 7286 studies, nine studies met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) and warfarin for reducing recurrent VTE and bleeding events in moderate CKD patients. The risk of overall major bleeding increased when the degree of kidney impairment increased. There was no significant difference between apixaban and warfarin for VTE outcomes in dialysis patients.
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
There continues to be a controversial debate whether it may be more beneficial to use DOACs versus warfarin in CKD/dialysis patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk vs benefit of using DOACs in the CKD/ESKD population should continue to be evaluated for each individual patient.
CONCLUSION
Apixaban may be used cautiously as an alternative in acute VTE treatment in severe CKD patients. Insufficient evidence is available to suggest the use of dabigatran and rivaroxaban in this patient population. The benefit of using DOACs in this population for VTE treatment should be weighed against the potential bleeding risk in patients with CKD.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Rivaroxaban; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 33073581
DOI: 10.1177/1060028020967635