-
Cureus Feb 2024The conventional method of heparin and protamine management during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is based on total body weight which fails to account for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The conventional method of heparin and protamine management during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is based on total body weight which fails to account for the heterogeneous response to heparin in each patient. On the other hand, the literature is inconclusive on whether individualized anticoagulation management based on real-time blood heparin concentration improves post-CBP outcomes.
METHODS
We searched databases of Medline, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHL), and Google Scholar, recruiting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing the outcomes of dosing heparin and/or protamine based on measured heparin concentration versus patient's total body weight for CPB. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression were conducted to compare the outcome profiles. Primary endpoints include postoperative blood loss and the correlation with heparin and protamine doses, the reversal protamine and loading heparin dose ratio; secondary endpoints included postoperative platelet counts, antithrombin III, fibrinogen levels, activated prothrombin time (aPTT), incidences of heparin rebound, and re-exploration of chest wound for bleeding.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies, including 22 RCTs and four prospective cohort studies involving 3,810 patients, were included. Compared to body weight-based dosing, patients of individualized, heparin concentration-based group had significantly lower postoperative blood loss (mean difference (MD)=49.51 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.33-93.71), lower protamine-to-heparin dosing ratio (MD=-0.20, 95% CI: -0.32 ~ -0.12), and higher early postoperative platelet counts (MD=8.83, 95% CI: 2.07-15.59). The total heparin doses and protamine reversal were identified as predictors of postoperative blood loss by meta-regression.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a significant correlation between the doses of heparin and protamine with postoperative blood loss; therefore, précised dosing of both could be critical for reducing bleeding and transfusion requirements. Data from the enrolled studies indicated that compared to conventional weight-based dosing, individualized, blood concentration-based heparin and protamine dosing may have outcome benefits reducing postoperative blood loss. The dosing calculation of heparin based on the assumption of a one-compartment pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model and linear relationship between the calculated dose and blood heparin concentration may be inaccurate. With the recent advancement of the technologies of machine learning, individualized, precision management of anticoagulation for CPB may be possible in the near future.
PubMed: 38357407
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54144 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Mar 2022The real-world studies on recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in VTE patients have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The real-world studies on recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in VTE patients have reported conflicting findings. Our study aimed to provide the direct comparison evidence of different NOACs for VTE patients in clinical practice settings.
METHODS
Search of the medical literature was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 22, 2021. Among the 19,996 citations retrieved, a total of 63,144 patients from 6 studies were analyzed. Clinical outcomes included recurrent VTE, death, and different bleeding events.
RESULTS
Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) analysis suggested that apixaban had significant lower bleeding riskthan rivaroxaban (major, minor and any bleeding: HR = 0.61, 0.56, 0.70; p = 0.008, < 0.0001, 0.006, respectively), but no statistics difference found in recurrent VTE events (HR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.47, p = 0.93). There was no significant difference of major bleeding between dabigatran and rivaroxaban (odds ratios (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI 0.09-1.90, p = 0.25), apixaban and dabigatran (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15-2.72, p = 0.83). No significant difference was found in the comparison of edoxaban and other NOACs in VTE recurrence, major bleeding and composite outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
In the prevention of bleeding events, apixaban was associated with a lower risk than rivaroxaban, but equivalent efficacy for different NOACs in prevention of recurrent VTE. Evidence generated from the meta-analysis based on real-world data can help to guide selection between apixaban and rivaroxaban in routine clinical practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statements and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140553).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Dabigatran; Hemorrhage; Humans; Rivaroxaban; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35287588
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-022-02550-8 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Nov 2022The evidence of a protective effect of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) in oral anticoagulant (OAC)-treated patients against gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is still lacking.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The evidence of a protective effect of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) in oral anticoagulant (OAC)-treated patients against gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is still lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the risk of GIB in patients with OAC and PPI cotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed for studies reporting GIB risk in OAC and PPI cotherapy. Primary outcomes were total GIB and major GIB events. Pooled estimates of GIB risk were calculated by a random-effect meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies and 1 970 931 patients were included. OAC and PPI cotherapy were associated with a lower odds of total and major GIB; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.67 (0.62-0.74) for total and 0.68 (0.63-0.75) for major GIB, respectively. No differences in the GIB of PPI cotherapy were observed between Asians and non-Asians (P-for-difference, total GIB = .70, major GIB = .75, respectively). For all kinds of OAC except for edoxaban, PPI cotreatment was related to lower odds of GIB by 24-44%. The protective effect of PPI on total GIB was more significant in concurrent antiplatelets or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and those with high bleeding risks: patients with previous GIB history, HAS-BLED ≥3 or underlying gastrointestinal diseases.
CONCLUSION
In patients who receive OAC, PPI cotherapy is associated with a lower total and major GIB irrespective of ethnic group and OAC type, except for edoxaban. PPI cotherapy can be considered particularly in patients with high risk of GIB.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticoagulants; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Pyridines; Thiazoles
PubMed: 35921204
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15478 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2021Acute stroke treatment is a time-critical process in which every minute counts. Laboratory biomarkers are needed to aid clinical decisions in the diagnosis. Although...
Acute stroke treatment is a time-critical process in which every minute counts. Laboratory biomarkers are needed to aid clinical decisions in the diagnosis. Although imaging is critical for this process, these biomarkers may provide additional information to distinguish actual stroke from its mimics and monitor patient condition and the effect of potential neuroprotective strategies. For such biomarkers to be effectively scalable to public health in any economic setting, these must be cost-effective and non-invasive. We hypothesized that blood-based combinations (panels) of proteins might be the key to this approach and explored this possibility through a systematic review. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines for systematic review. Initially, the broader search for biomarkers for early stroke diagnosis yielded 704 hits, and five were added manually. We then narrowed the search to combinations (panels) of the protein markers obtained from the blood. Twelve articles dealing with blood-based panels of protein biomarkers for stroke were included in the systematic review. We observed that NR2 peptide (antibody against the NR2 fragment) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are brain-specific markers related to stroke. Von Willebrand factor (vWF), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), and S100β have been widely used as biomarkers, whereas others such as the ischemia-modified albumin (IMA) index, antithrombin III (AT-III), and fibrinogen have not been evaluated in combination. We herein propose the following new combination of biomarkers for future validation: panel 1 (NR2 + GFAP + MMP-9 + vWF + S100β), panel 2 (NR2 + GFAP + MMP-9 + vWF + IMA index), and panel 3 (NR2 + GFAP + AT-III + fibrinogen). More research is needed to validate, identify, and introduce these panels of biomarkers into medical practice for stroke recurrence and diagnosis in a scalable manner. The evidence indicates that the most promising approach is to combine different blood-based proteins to provide diagnostic precision for health interventions. Through our systematic review, we suggest three novel biomarker panels based on the results in the literature and an interpretation based on stroke pathophysiology.
PubMed: 34122297
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.638693 -
European Journal of Clinical... Dec 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether tramadol intake increases the risk of bleeding in patients receiving oral anticoagulants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether tramadol intake increases the risk of bleeding in patients receiving oral anticoagulants.
METHODS
This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022327230. We searched PubMed and Embase up to 14 April 2022, and references and citations of included studies were screened. Comparative and non-comparative studies exploring bleeding complications among adult patients on oral anticoagulants and tramadol were included. Risk of bias was assessed using an adaptation of the Drug Interaction Probability Scale for case reports and case series and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for comparative studies. A meta-analysis was performed for the risk of serious bleeding (leading to hospitalisation or death) associated with tramadol in patients on vitamin K antagonists.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies were included: 1 case series, 12 case reports, 2 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies. Most of the studies described tramadol-vitamin K antagonists' concomitant use; one case-control study also assessed dabigatran and rivaroxaban; one case report involved dabigatran. Among case reports/series, a total of 33 patients had a bleeding complication while using tramadol and an oral anticoagulant. The 4 comparative studies reported an increased bleeding risk during tramadol and vitamin K antagonist intake which was statistically significant in one study; the pooled risk ratio of serious bleeding was 2.68 [95% CI: 1.45 to 4.96; p < 0.001].
CONCLUSION
This systematic review confirms an association between tramadol use and risk of bleeding in patients on vitamin K antagonists. Evidence is too limited to assess whether this risk extends to patients on direct oral anticoagulants, and further studies are needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dabigatran; Tramadol; Case-Control Studies; Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Rivaroxaban; Hemorrhage; Fibrinolytic Agents; Vitamin K; Atrial Fibrillation
PubMed: 36323905
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-022-03411-1 -
Blood Advances Aug 2019Both apixaban and rivaroxaban have been approved for use in acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although indirect comparison through network meta-analyses of randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Both apixaban and rivaroxaban have been approved for use in acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Although indirect comparison through network meta-analyses of randomized trials have been performed to compare the efficacy and safety of these agents, further comparison between these agents was lacking until recently. We sought to systematically review and carry out a meta-analysis of studies to further compare apixaban with rivaroxaban from multiple studies done in the real-world settings. Studies comparing rivaroxaban with apixaban in patients with acute VTE were identified through electronic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library up to May 2019. Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) were calculated and combined using a random-effects model meta-analysis. In an analysis involving 24 041 patients, recurrent VTE within 6 months occurred in 56 of 4897 patients (1.14%) in the apixaban group and 258 of 19 144 patients (1.35%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.19; = .45). Clinically relevant major bleeding occurred in 85 of 11 559 patients (0.74%) in the apixaban group and 350 of 33 909 patients (1.03%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.93; = .01). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 169 of 3417 patients (4.95%) in the apixaban group and 1094 of 12 475 patients (8.77%) in the rivaroxaban group (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; < .01). Apixaban shows equivalent efficacy in prevention of recurrent VTE but decreased risk of major and minor bleeding events compared with rivaroxaban.
Topics: Blood Coagulation; Hemorrhage; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Rivaroxaban; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31405948
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000572 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2024Balancing the risk of bleeding and thrombosis after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is challenging, and the optimal antithrombotic therapy remains uncertain. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Balancing the risk of bleeding and thrombosis after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is challenging, and the optimal antithrombotic therapy remains uncertain. The potential of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to prevent ischaemic cardiovascular events is promising, but the evidence remains limited.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in addition to background antiplatelet therapy, compared with placebo, antiplatelet therapy, or both, after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in people without an indication for anticoagulation (i.e. atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, and two clinical trial registers in September 2022 with no language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of included studies for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NOACs plus antiplatelet therapy versus placebo, antiplatelet therapy, or both, in people without an indication for anticoagulation after an AMI.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently checked the results of searches to identify relevant studies, assessed each included study, and extracted study data. We conducted random-effects pairwise analyses using Review Manager Web, and network meta-analysis using the R package 'netmeta'. We ranked competing treatments by P scores, which are derived from the P values of all pairwise comparisons and allow ranking of treatments on a continuous 0-to-1 scale.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified seven eligible RCTs, including an ongoing trial that we could not include in the analysis. Of the six RCTs involving 33,039 participants, three RCTs compared rivaroxaban with placebo, two RCTs compared apixaban with placebo, and one RCT compared dabigatran with placebo. All participants in the six RCTs received concomitant antiplatelet therapy. The available evidence suggests that rivaroxaban compared with placebo reduces the rate of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 250; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; high certainty) and probably reduces cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01; NNTB 250; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; moderate certainty). There is probably little or no difference between apixaban and placebo in all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 334; 2 studies, 8638 participants; moderate certainty) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.27; number needed to treat not applicable; 2 studies, 8638 participants; moderate certainty). Dabigatran may reduce the rate of all-cause mortality compared with placebo (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06; NNTB 63; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). Dabigatran compared with placebo may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, although the point estimate suggests benefit (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.52; NNTB 143; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). Two of the investigated NOACs were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding compared to placebo: apixaban (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.06; NNTH 143; 2 studies, 8544 participants; high certainty) and rivaroxaban (RR 3.31, 95% CI 1.12 to 9.77; NNTH 125; 3 studies, 21,870 participants; high certainty). There may be little or no difference between dabigatran and placebo in the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.22 to 14.12; NNTH 500; 1 study, 1861 participants; low certainty). The results of the network meta-analysis were inconclusive between the different NOACs at all individual doses for all primary outcomes. However, low-certainty evidence suggests that apixaban (combined dose) may be less effective than rivaroxaban and dabigatran for preventing all-cause mortality after AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with placebo, rivaroxaban reduces all-cause mortality and probably reduces cardiovascular mortality after AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. Dabigatran may reduce the rate of all-cause mortality and may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality. There is probably no meaningful difference in the rate of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between apixaban and placebo. Moreover, we found no meaningful benefit in efficacy outcomes for specific therapy doses of any investigated NOACs following AMI in people without an indication for anticoagulation. Evidence from the included studies suggests that rivaroxaban and apixaban increase the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo. There may be little or no difference between dabigatran and placebo in the risk of major bleeding. Network meta-analysis did not show any superiority of one NOAC over another for our prespecified primary outcomes. Although the evidence suggests that NOACs reduce mortality, the effect size or impact is small; moreover, NOACs may increase major bleeding. Head-to-head trials, comparing NOACs against each other, are required to provide more solid evidence.
Topics: Humans; Dabigatran; Rivaroxaban; Network Meta-Analysis; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Anticoagulants; Myocardial Infarction; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 38264795
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014678.pub2 -
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 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jul 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xa inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF) and coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of Xa inhibitors in patients with heart failure and coronary or peripheral artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xa inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF) and coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD).
METHODS
A systematic electronic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 26, 2019. A total of four randomized controlled trials involving 14,694 patients were included in this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the Xa inhibitor and control group regarding the primary efficacy outcome [rivaroxaban 2.5 mg group: relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.01, P=0.06; rivaroxaban 5 mg group: RR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.02, P=0.08]. The risk of the primary safety outcome was significantly increased among patients who received Xa inhibitors compared with the control group (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg group: RR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.21-1.98, P=0.0006; rivaroxaban 5 mg group: RR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.30-2.12, P<0.0001). There was no significant difference in the risk of cardiovascular death between the Xa inhibitor and control group (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg group: RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.54-1.14, P=0.21; rivaroxaban 5 mg group: RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73-1.08, P=0.24). The risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in the rivaroxaban 5 mg group was significantly lower than that of the control group (RR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69-0.99, P=0.04). However, the risk of MI in the rivaroxaban 2.5 mg group was similar to that of the control group (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71-1.01, P=0.07).
DISCUSSION
Xa inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding among HF and CAD or PAD patients. Therefore, Xa inhibitors should be used cautiously in patients with HF and CAD or PAD.
Topics: Factor Xa Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Humans; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivaroxaban
PubMed: 34353093
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-1645 -
Renal Failure Dec 2024This review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients on dialysis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients on dialysis.
METHODS
All types of studies published on PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science up to 10 September 2023 and comparing outcomes of apixaban vs. VKA in dialysis patients were eligible.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six retrospective studies were included. Apixaban treatment was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.77; = 50%) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.98, = 9%) compared to VKA. Meta-analysis also showed that the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.85, = 16%) and intracranial bleeding (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.84, = 0%) was significantly reduced with apixaban. Meta-analysis showed no difference in the risk of ischemic stroke (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.06, 2.69, = 0%), mortality (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.74, 2.16, = 94%) and recurrent venous thromboembolism (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.21, = 0%) between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no difference in bleeding outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence from a mix of RCTs and retrospective studies shows that apixaban may have better safety and equivalent efficacy as compared to VKA in dialysis patients. Apixaban treatment correlated with significantly reduced risk of major bleeding and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in observational studies but not in RCTs. The predominance of retrospective data warrants caution in the interpretation of results.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Vitamin K
PubMed: 38770962
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2024.2349114