-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).
CONCLUSIONS
Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018106181.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35264372
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-066785 -
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 -
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in advanced chronic kidney disease.Journal of Nephrology Nov 2022Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in randomised controlled trials with CrCl < 30 ml/min. The objective of this review was to identify the impact of different anticoagulant strategies in patients with advanced CKD including dialysis.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, searching electronic databases from 1946 to 2022. Studies that evaluated both thrombotic and bleeding outcomes with anticoagulant use in CrCl < 50 ml/min were included.
RESULTS
Our initial search yielded 14,503 papers with 53 suitable for inclusion. RCTs comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin for patients with VTE and CrCl 30-50 ml/min found no difference in recurrent VTE events (RR 0.68(95% CI 0.42-1.11)) with reduced bleeding (RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.94)). Observational data in haemodialysis suggest lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding with apixaban versus warfarin. Very few studies examining outcomes were available for therapeutic and prophylactic dose low molecular weight heparin for CrCl < 30 ml/min. Findings for patients with AF on dialysis were that warfarin or DOACs had a similar or higher risk of stroke compared to no anticoagulation. For patients with AF and CrCl < 30 ml/min not on dialysis, anticoagulation should be considered on an individual basis, with limited studies suggesting DOACs may have a preferable safety profile.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are still required, some ongoing, in patients with advanced CKD (CrCl < 30 ml/min) to identify the safest and most effective treatment options for VTE and AF.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Warfarin; Venous Thromboembolism; Administration, Oral; Atrial Fibrillation; Hemorrhage; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight
PubMed: 36006608
DOI: 10.1007/s40620-022-01413-x -
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica Jan 2022Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is caused by partial or complete occlusion of the major cerebral venous sinuses or the smaller feeding cortical veins which predispose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is caused by partial or complete occlusion of the major cerebral venous sinuses or the smaller feeding cortical veins which predispose to the risk of venous infarction and hemorrhage. Current guidelines recommend treating CVT with either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) followed by an oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for 3-12 months. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have already established benefit over warfarin as a long-term treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolic disorder like deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) given its equal efficacy and better safety profile. The benefit of DOACs over warfarin as a long-term anticoagulation for CVT has likewise been extensively studied, yet it has not been approved as first-line therapy in the current practice. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies to generate robust evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of DOACs in CVT. This meta-analysis demonstrates that the use of DOACs in CVT has similar efficacy and safety compared to VKAs with better recanalization rate.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 34287841
DOI: 10.1111/ane.13506 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Sep 2014Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis treatment. However, whether balanced or unbalanced crystalloids or natural or synthetic colloids confer a survival... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis treatment. However, whether balanced or unbalanced crystalloids or natural or synthetic colloids confer a survival advantage is unclear.
PURPOSE
To examine the effect of different resuscitative fluids on mortality in patients with sepsis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACP Journal Club, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through March 2014.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials that evaluated different resuscitative fluids in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and death. No language restrictions were applied.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Risk of bias for individual studies and quality of evidence were assessed.
DATA SYNTHESIS
14 studies (18916 patients) were included with 15 direct comparisons. Network meta-analysis at the 4-node level showed higher mortality with starches than with crystalloids (high confidence) and lower mortality with albumin than with crystalloids (moderate confidence) or starches (moderate confidence). Network meta-analysis at the 6-node level showed lower mortality with albumin than with saline (moderate confidence) and low-molecular-weight starch (low confidence) and with balanced crystalloids than with saline (low confidence) and low- and high-molecular-weight starches (moderate confidence).
LIMITATIONS
These trials were heterogeneous in case mix, fluids evaluated, duration of fluid exposure, and risk of bias. Imprecise estimates for several comparisons in this network meta-analysis contribute to low confidence in most estimates of effect.
CONCLUSION
Among patients with sepsis, resuscitation with balanced crystalloids or albumin compared with other fluids seems to be associated with reduced mortality.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
The Hamilton Chapter of the Canadian Intensive Care Foundation and the Critical Care Medicine Residency Program and Critical Care Division Alternate Funding Plan at McMaster University.
Topics: Albumins; Colloids; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Gelatin; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Isotonic Solutions; Molecular Weight; Rehydration Solutions; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 25047428
DOI: 10.7326/M14-0178 -
Chest Feb 2022Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates.
RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty).
INTERPRETATION
Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear.
TRIAL REGISTRY
Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Critical Illness; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 34419428
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.08.050 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2020International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence of the benefit and harm associated with specific low molecular weight heparins such as enoxaparin is dated. No current systematic review and meta-analysis describing the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy exists.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched on August 17, 2018 for clinical trials or observational studies in pregnant women receiving enoxaparin; patients with a prosthetic heart valve were excluded. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model, and heterogeneity was measured using the I statistic.
RESULTS
Of the 485 records identified in the search, 24 studies published clinical trials, and observational studies were found dating back to 2000. Only one observational cohort and one randomized control trial focused on the use of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis and therefore efficacy was not assessed; the other studies included women with recurrent pregnancy loss (15 studies), history of placental vascular complications (five studies), and recurrent in vitro fertilization failure (two studies) and were therefore analyzed in terms of safety only. Bleeding events were non-significantly more often reported for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 1.35 [0.88-2.07]) but less often reported for enoxaparin versus aspirin (RR 0.93 [0.62-1.39]); thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and teratogenicity were rarely reported events; in patients with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, encouragingly the rates of pregnancy loss were significantly lower for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 0.58 [0.34-0.96]) and enoxaparin + aspirin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.42 [0.32-0.56]) as well as observably lower for enoxaparin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.39 [0.15-1.01]), though significant heterogeneity was observed (I > 60).
CONCLUSION
Literature on the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis remains scanty, and therefore efficacy was not assessed; in terms of safety, when including other indications for enoxaparin in pregnancy, we found that enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower complications than aspirin. Given differences in study design and study heterogeneity, pregnancy loss results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, reports of thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and congenital malformations were rare.
FUNDING
Sanofi.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Enoxaparin; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31673991
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01124-z -
Cureus Apr 2022Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading... (Review)
Review
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading cause of functional disability and poor quality of life. Various modalities of therapy are recommended by different research organizations at different stages of OA including non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical interventions. Intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) is widely used for over three decades in the treatment of OA. However controversies exist regarding its safety and efficacy, the number of injections and courses, type of preparation, duration of its effects, and combining it with other drugs or molecules. This study aimed to review the most recent data available in the published literature to address these. Electronic databases like Medline, Embase, ProQuest, and Google Scholar were searched for articles using keywords, intraarticular injections, hyaluronic acid, and osteoarthritis knee. The review was carried out as per PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-eight randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of HA were included in the systematic review. Out of the 38 studies, 22 (57.9%) were double-blind, eight (21%) single-blind, three (7.9%) non-blind, four (10%) with simple randomization, and one (2.7%) was open-labeled. Total 5,025 patients were included in these studies. The mean age of the patients was 60.28 years and the osteoarthritis grade of the knee joint was 1 to 3. HA was studied as a test preparation in 19 (50%) while in another 19 (50%) it was studied as a control. In 24 (63.2%) studies, HA was used as high molecular weight preparation in eight (21%) as low molecular weight preparation while in six studies the information was not available. HA was used as a standalone preparation in 31 studies, in two studies it was injected with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and with either low-level laser therapy (LLLT), triamcinolone (TA), betamethasone (CS), poly deoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) or dexamethasone (DX) in one study each. In the majority of the studies, HA was given as a single injection (52.6% studies) or weekly three injections (28.9% studies). In 13.2 %, it was given as weekly 5 injections and in 5.3% as weekly two injections. IA-HA injections have a limited role in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in those patients who do not have sufficient pain relief with topical or oral medication and physical therapy. It is safe and effective except for minor side effects such as local pain and swelling lasting for a few days. Severe allergic reactions are extremely rare. They provide adequate pain relief and functional improvement for up to six months irrespective of a number of injections and type of preparations used. The combination formulations with corticosteroids or PRP or MSCs show better results than HA alone. Combining HA with newer molecules such as peptides or diclofenac for sustained and disease-modifying effects requires more studies in the future.
PubMed: 35651409
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24503 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Feb 2022Evidence on the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin, alone or in combination with low-dose aspirin, for the prevention for preeclampsia in high-risk patients is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence on the impact of low-molecular-weight heparin, alone or in combination with low-dose aspirin, for the prevention for preeclampsia in high-risk patients is conflicting.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a meta-analysis of studies published to assess the effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of preeclampsia and other placenta-related complications in high-risk women.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was performed to identify relevant studies, using the databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without publication time restrictions.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (with or without low-dose aspirin), in high-risk women, defined as either history of preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, fetal demise, or miscarriage or being at high risk after first-trimester screening of preeclampsia.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. The primary outcome was the development of preeclampsia. We performed prespecified subgroup analyses according to combination with low-dose aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin type, gestational age when treatment was started, and study population (patients with thrombophilia, at high risk of preeclampsia or miscarriage). Secondary outcomes included small for gestational age, perinatal death, miscarriage, and placental abruption. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation methodology.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies (2795 participants) were included. In high-risk women, treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was associated with a reduction in the development of preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90; P=.010); small for gestational age (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.85; P=.003), and perinatal death (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.94; P=.030). This reduction was stronger if low-molecular-weight heparin was started before 16 weeks' gestation (13 studies, 2474 participants) for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.76; P=.0004). When only studies including low-dose aspirin as an intervention were analyzed (6 randomized controlled trials, 920 participants), a significant reduction was observed in those with combined treatment (low-molecular-weight heparin plus low-dose aspirin) compared with low-dose aspirin alone (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.95; P=.030). Overall, adverse events were neither serious nor significantly different. Quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, mostly because of the lack of blinding, imprecision, and inconsistency.
CONCLUSION
Low-molecular-weight heparin use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of preeclampsia and other placenta-mediated complications in high-risk women and when treatment was started before 16 weeks' gestation. Combined treatment with low-dose aspirin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of preeclampsia compared with low-dose aspirin alone. However, there exists important clinical and statistical heterogeneity, and therefore, these results merit confirmation in large well-designed clinical trials.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fetal Growth Retardation; Gestational Age; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34301348
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.11.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013Trauma is a leading causes of death and disability in young people. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a principal cause of death. Trauma patients are at high risk of deep... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Trauma is a leading causes of death and disability in young people. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a principal cause of death. Trauma patients are at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The incidence varies according to the method used to measure the DVT and the location of the thrombosis. Due to prolonged rest and coagulation abnormalities, trauma patients are at increased risk of thrombus formation. Thromboprohylaxis, either mechanical or pharmacological, may decrease mortality and morbidity in trauma patients who survive beyond the first day in hospital, by decreasing the risk of VTE in this population.A previous systematic review did not find evidence of effectiveness for either pharmacological or mechanical interventions. However, this systematic review was conducted 10 years ago and most of the included studies were of poor quality. Since then new trials have been conducted. Although current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients, there has not been a comprehensive and updated systematic review since the one published.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients on mortality and incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. To compare the effects of different thromboprophylaxis interventions and their effects according to the type of trauma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (searched April 30 2009), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2009, issue 2 (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1950 to April (week 3) 2009, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to (week 17) April 2009, PubMed (searched 29 April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to April 2009), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to April 2009).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled clinical trials involving people of any age with major trauma defined by one or more of the following criteria: physiological: penetrating or blunt trauma with more than two organs and unstable vital signs, anatomical: people with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) higher than 9, mechanism: people who are involved in a 'high energy' event with a risk for severe injury despite stable or normal vital signs. We excluded trials that only recruited outpatients, trials that recruited people with hip fractures only, or people with acute spinal injuries.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors, in pairs (LB and CM, EF and RC), independently examined the titles and the abstracts, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the trials and analysed the data. PP resolved any disagreement between the authors.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included (n=3005). Four trials compared the effect of any type (mechanical and/or pharmacological) of prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis. Prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT in people with trauma (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84). Mechanical prophylaxis reduced the risk of DVT (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.73). Pharmacological prophylaxis was more effective than mechanical methods at reducing the risk of DVT (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95). LMWH appeared to reduce the risk of DVT compared to UH (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94). People who received both mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis had a lower risk of DVT (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.60)
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find evidence that thromboprophylaxis reduces mortality or PE in any of the comparisons assessed. However, we found some evidence that thromboprophylaxis prevents DVT. Although the strength of the evidence was not high, taking into account existing information from other related conditions such as surgery, we recommend the use of any DVT prophylactic method for people with severe trauma.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Compression Bandages; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venous Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 23543562
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008303.pub2