-
Acta Neurochirurgica Nov 2023In neurosurgical patients, the risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) is high due to the relatively long duration of surgical interventions, usually long... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In neurosurgical patients, the risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) is high due to the relatively long duration of surgical interventions, usually long immobilization time after surgery, and possible neurological deficits which can negatively influence mobility. In neurosurgical clinical practice, there is lack of consensus on optimal prophylaxis against VTE, mechanical or pharmacological.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review available literature on the incidence of VTE in neurosurgical interventions and to establish an optimum prevention strategy.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EmCare, based on a sensitive search string combination. Studies were selected by predefined selection criteria, and risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane risk of bias.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were included, half of which had low risk of bias (21 case series, 3 comparative studies, 1 RCT). VTE was substantially higher if the evaluation was done by duplex ultrasound (DUS), or another systematic screening method, in comparison to clinical evaluation (clin). Without prophylaxis DVT, incidence varied from 4 (clin) to 10% (DUS), studies providing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) reported an incidence of 2 (clin) to 31% (DUS), providing LMWH and compression stockings (CS) reported an incidence of 6.4% (clin) to 29.8% (DUS), and providing LMWH and intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPC) reported an incidence of 3 (clin) to 22.3% (DUS). Due to a lack of data, VTE incidence could not meaningfully be compared between patients with intracranial and spine surgery. The reported incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) was 0 to 7.9%.
CONCLUSION
Low molecular weight heparin, compression stockings, and intermittent pneumatic compression devices were all evaluated to give reduction in VTE, but data were too widely varying to establish an optimum prevention strategy. Systematic screening for DVT reveals much higher incidence percentages in comparison to screening solely on clinical grounds and is recommended in follow-up of neurosurgical procedures with an increased risk for DVT development in order to prevent occurrence of PE.
Topics: Humans; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Anticoagulants; Venous Thromboembolism; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Embolism
PubMed: 37796296
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-023-05792-3 -
European Review For Medical and... Jun 2022The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), also known as COVID-19, a viral outbreak that started in December 2019, eventually lead to a worldwide...
OBJECTIVE
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), also known as COVID-19, a viral outbreak that started in December 2019, eventually lead to a worldwide pandemic. COVID-19 usually presents with flu-like symptoms, such as headaches, dry cough, fever, fatigue, myalgia, shortness of breath, diarrhea and loss of smell or taste. However, it can also have major effects on the cardiovascular system. Based on the available relevant literature, we aimed to elaborate the possible mechanisms influencing cardiovascular damage, myocardial injury and thromboembolic disease process in particular.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
After considering our inclusion and exclusion criteria, the systematic review included 8 studies in total.
RESULTS
In general, underlying cardiovascular diseases were associated with poorer clinical outcomes. This may be due to immunological dysregulation. The disease outcomes were also positively correlated with the severity of the disease, especially with myocardial injury. Thus, cardiac biomarkers, such as Troponin T, CK-MB and myoglobin could be utilized in prediction algorithms for deciphering the clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Venous thromboembolisms were commonly encountered complications despite the administration of thromboprophylaxis, and they mostly presented as pulmonary embolisms, warranting the need for relevant investigations in hemodynamically unstable patients. However, more studies need to be conducted to better understand the mechanisms at play and the ensuing complications, to better treat COVID-19 patients.
Topics: Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Troponin T; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35776052
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202206_29090 -
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 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2022Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor used in preventing thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and several other conditions. Routine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor used in preventing thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and several other conditions. Routine dabigatran concentration monitoring is not recommended in clinical practice; however, measurement of dabigatran concentration may be required in several conditions. This study aims to pool the peak and trough dabigatran concentration from real-world studies. A systematic review was performed to identify studies that measured the peak and trough dabigatran concentrations. Observational studies reporting dabigatran peak or trough concentrations and patients' clinical characteristics of either sex, age or weight were included. Random-effect meta-analyses and metaregression were conducted to pool dabigatran concentrations and to identify the correlation between factors affecting dabigatran concentrations. Fifteen studies with a total of 1226 patients were included. The pooled peak dabigatran concentration was 133 ng/mL (95% CI: 113-154, I = 86%, n = 655), while the pooled dabigatran trough concentration was 80 ng/mL (95% CI: 69-91, I = 93%, n = 1010). Metaregression analyses suggested that age is significantly correlated to trough concentration, while body weight and creatinine clearance significantly correlated to peak concentration. Subgroup results revealed that dabigatran concentration when measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was higher than haemoclot thrombin inhibitor assay. Several guidelines have proposed dabigatran concentrations target range and the pooled dabigatran concentrations were in line with the suggested range. Further studies to correlate dabigatran concentrations and clinical outcomes is warranted to improve the safety and efficacy monitoring of dabigatran therapy.
Topics: Adult; Antithrombins; Atrial Fibrillation; Blood Coagulation Tests; Chromatography, Liquid; Dabigatran; Humans
PubMed: 35665523
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15431 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia. Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.
Topics: Aged; Anticoagulants; COVID-19; Heparin; Humans; Middle Aged; SARS-CoV-2; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35244208
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013739.pub2 -
Open Heart 2020To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of polypharmacy on health outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of polypharmacy on health outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception until 31 July 2019. Studies including post hoc analyses of prospective randomised controlled trials or observational design that examined the impact of polypharmacy on clinically significant outcomes in AF including mortality, hospitalisations, stroke, bleeding, falls and quality of life were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of six studies were identified from the systematic review, with three studies reporting on common outcomes and used for a meta-analysis. The total study population from the three studies was 33 602 and 37.2% were female. Moderate and severe polypharmacy, defined as 5-9 medicines and >9 medicines, was observed in 42.7% and 20.7% of patients respectively, and was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.36, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.54, p<0.001; HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.41, p<0.001, respectively), major bleeding (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.52, p<0.001; HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.09, p<0.001, respectively) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.22, p<0.01; HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.64, p<0.01, respectively). There was no statistically significant association between polypharmacy and stroke or systemic embolism or intracranial bleeding. Among other examined outcomes, polypharmacy was associated with cardiovascular death, hospitalisation, reduced quality of life and poorer physical function.
CONCLUSIONS
Polypharmacy is highly prevalent in the AF population and is associated with numerous adverse outcomes.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42018105298.
Topics: Aged; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Polypharmacy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32509316
DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2020-001257 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Aug 2023: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 caused the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly became a pandemic, claiming millions of lives. Apart... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 caused the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly became a pandemic, claiming millions of lives. Apart from the main manifestations of this infection concerning the respiratory tract, such as pneumonia, there are also many manifestations from the gastrointestinal tract. Of these, bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract is a significant complication quite dangerous for life. This bleeding is divided into upper and lower, and the primary pathophysiological mechanism is the entering of the virus into the host cells through the Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors. Also, other comorbidities and the medication of corticosteroids and anticoagulants are considered to favor the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). : This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the studies were searched in two different databases (Scopus and PubMed) from November 2019 until February 2023. All studies that reported GIB events among COVID-19 patients were included. : 33 studies were selected and reviewed to estimate the prevalence of GIB. A total of 134,905 patients with COVID-19 were included in these studies, and there were 1458 episodes of GIB. The prevalence of GIB, in these 33 studies, ranges from 0.47% to 19%. This range of prevalence is justified by the characteristics of the COVID-19 patients. These characteristics are the severity of COVID-19, anticoagulant and other drug treatments, the selection of only patients with gastrointestinal manifestations, etc. The pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal bleeding was estimated to be 3.05%, rising to 6.2% when only anticoagulant patients were included. : GIB in COVID-19 patients is not a rare finding, and its appropriate and immediate treatment is necessary as it can be life-threatening. The most common clinical findings are melena and hematemesis, which characterize upper GIB. Treatment can be conservative; however, endoscopic management of bleeding with embolization is deemed necessary in some cases.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Prevalence; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Anticoagulants
PubMed: 37629790
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59081500 -
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 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Jun 2022To identify the facilitators of and barriers to the implementation of Community Pharmacists-Led Anticoagulation Management Services (CPAMS). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify the facilitators of and barriers to the implementation of Community Pharmacists-Led Anticoagulation Management Services (CPAMS).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until August 20, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
All abstracts proceeded to full-text review, which was completed by 2 reviewers. Data extraction was completed by a single reviewer and verified. Analysis was completed using best-fit framework synthesis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 17 articles reporting on CPAMS from 6 jurisdictions were included: 2 Canadian provincial programs (Nova Scotia, Alberta), a national program (New Zealand), and 3 cities in the United Kingdom (Whittington and Brighton and Hove) and Australia (Sydney). Facilitators of CPAMS included convenience for patients, accessibility for patients, professional satisfaction for pharmacists, increased efficiency in anticoagulation management, improved outcomes, enhanced collaboration, and scalability. Barriers included perceived poor quality of care by patients, resistance by general practitioners, organizational limits, capping of the number of eligible patients, and cost.
RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
The barriers and facilitators identified in this review will inform health policy makers on the implementation and improvement of CPAMS for patients and health care practitioners.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
CPAMS has been implemented in 6 jurisdictions across 4 countries, with reported benefits and challenges. The programs were structurally similar in most jurisdictions, with minor variations in implementation. New anticoagulation management programs should consider adapting existing frameworks to local needs.
Topics: Alberta; Anticoagulants; Australia; Humans; Pharmacists
PubMed: 34510918
DOI: 10.1177/10600280211045075 -
Journal of Critical Care Oct 2023The initiation of the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex coagulatory and inflammatory processes and consequently needed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The initiation of the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex coagulatory and inflammatory processes and consequently needed anticoagulation. Systemic anticoagulation bears an additional risk of serious bleeding, and its monitoring is of immense importance. Therefore, our work aims to analyze the association of anticoagulation monitoring with bleeding during ECMO support.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic literature review and meta-analysis, complying with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO-CRD42022359465).
RESULTS
Seventeen studies comprising 3249 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients experiencing hemorrhage had a longer activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), a longer ECMO duration, and higher mortality. We could not find strong evidence of any aPTT threshold association with the bleeding occurrence, as less than half of authors reported a potential relationship. Finally, we identified the acute kidney injury (66%, 233/356) and hemorrhage (46%, 469/1046) to be the most frequent adverse events, while almost one-half of patients did not survive to discharge (47%, 1192/2490).
CONCLUSION
The aPTT-guided anticoagulation is still the standard of care in ECMO patients. We did not find strong evidence supporting the aPTT-guided monitoring during ECMO. Based on the weight of the available evidence, further randomized trials are crucial to clarify the best monitoring strategy.
Topics: Humans; Partial Thromboplastin Time; Anticoagulants; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Retrospective Studies; Hemorrhage; Heparin
PubMed: 37244207
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154332