-
NPJ Microgravity Feb 2024The validity of venous ultrasound (V-US) for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during spaceflight is unknown and difficult to establish in diagnostic accuracy...
The validity of venous ultrasound (V-US) for the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during spaceflight is unknown and difficult to establish in diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic management studies in this context. We performed a systematic review of the use of V-US in the upper-body venous system in spaceflight to identify microgravity-related changes and the effect of venous interventions to reverse them, and to assess appropriateness of spaceflight V-US with terrestrial standards. An appropriateness tool was developed following expert panel discussions and review of terrestrial diagnostic studies, including criteria relevant to crew experience, in-flight equipment, assessment sites, ultrasound modalities, and DVT diagnosis. Microgravity-related findings reported as an increase in internal jugular vein (IJV) cross-sectional area and pressure were associated with reduced, stagnant, and retrograde flow. Changes were on average responsive to venous interventions using lower body negative pressure, Bracelets, Valsalva and Mueller manoeuvres, and contralateral IJV compression. In comparison with terrestrial standards, spaceflight V-US did not meet all appropriateness criteria. In DVT studies (n = 3), a single thrombosis was reported and only ultrasound modality criterion met the standards. In the other studies (n = 15), all the criteria were appropriate except crew experience criterion, which was appropriate in only four studies. Future practice and research should account for microgravity-related changes, evaluate individual effect of venous interventions, and adopt Earth-based V-US standards.
PubMed: 38316814
DOI: 10.1038/s41526-024-00356-w -
Journal of Oral Biology and... 2024Arterial anastomoses are still most commonly performed using orthodox hand sewing technique. Various rationale such as non-pliable, atherosclerotic, thick-walled or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Arterial anastomoses are still most commonly performed using orthodox hand sewing technique. Various rationale such as non-pliable, atherosclerotic, thick-walled or irradiated vessels limit the competency of coupler devices for arterial micro-anastomosis. Microvascular coupling devices (MCD) are well known for venous anastomoses but arterial MCD have relatively been less navigated in reported literatures. This review outlines the current applications, troubleshooting, safety and efficiency of arterial MCD in free flaps.
METHODS
Comprehensive search of electronic databases (PUBMED/MEDLINE) in accordance with PRISMA guideline was performed. Data were extracted and collected in four groups of standardised variables.
RESULTS
Out of a total of 263 identified articles, 38 studies were analysed and 16 amidst these were included in final data synthesis. Included studies contained a combined total of 2416 patients who went through 521 arterial and 2460 venous anastomoses using 3 M/Synovis coupling devices. Among all coupled arterial anastomoses, 407 were conducted in head and neck free tissue transfer and 114 were performed in breast reconstruction. The aggregate coupled arterial micro-anastomosis success rate reported was 90.01 % (469/521). Only 9.98 % (52 out of 521) manifested pooled incidence of troubleshooting, thrombosis or flap failure.
CONCLUSION
Microsurgeons are resisting the frequent use of arterial coupling devices owing to inherent arterial characteristics, but with suitable vessel selection, arterial coupling may be a powerful tool and can be executed in safe, expeditious and reliable fashion. This study embellishes collaborative suggestions and troubleshooting issues related to arterial coupling, however further assessment would be required with controlled trials.
PubMed: 38313578
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2024.01.005 -
PloS One 2024Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to thrombotic disease in the venous and arterial circulations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to thrombotic disease in the venous and arterial circulations.
METHODS
Based on the current debate on antiplatelet therapy in COVID-19 patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of antiplatelet treatments. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on February 1, 2023, and only included Randomized clinical trials. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and used Random-effects models to estimate the pooled percentage and its 95% CI.
RESULTS
Five unique eligible studies were included, covering 17,950 patients with COVID-19. The result showed no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of all-cause death in antiplatelet therapy versus non-antiplatelet therapy (RR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.83-1.05, P = 0.26, I2 = 32%). Compared to no antiplatelet therapy, patients who received antiplatelet therapy had a significantly increased relative risk of major bleeding (RR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09-3.00, P = 0.02, I2 = 16%). The sequential analysis suggests that more RCTs are needed to draw more accurate conclusions. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the use of antiplatelet agents exhibited no significant benefit on all-cause death, and the upper bound of the confidence interval on all-cause death (RR 95% CI, 0.83-1.05) suggested that it was unlikely to be a substantiated harm risk associated with this treatment. However, evidence from all RCTs suggested a high risk of major bleeding in antiplatelet agent treatments.
CONCLUSION
According to the results of our sequential analysis, there is not enough evidence available to support or negate the use of antiplatelet agents in COVID-19 cases. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large, randomized clinical trials are needed.
Topics: Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; COVID-19; Hemorrhage; Thrombosis
PubMed: 38300975
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297628 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Apr 2024
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Venous Thrombosis; Hip Prosthesis; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices
PubMed: 38267270
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2024.01.018 -
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 -
BMC Women's Health Jan 2024Menopause hormone therapy (MHT), as an effective method to alleviate the menopause-related symptoms of women, its benefits, risks, and potential influencing factors for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Menopause hormone therapy (MHT), as an effective method to alleviate the menopause-related symptoms of women, its benefits, risks, and potential influencing factors for the cardiovascular system of postmenopausal women are not very clear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate cardiovascular benefits and risks of MHT in postmenopausal women, and analyze the underlying factors that affect both.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases were searched from 1975 to July 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that met pre-specified inclusion criteria were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers extracted data independently. A meta-analysis of random effects was used to analyze data.
MAIN RESULTS
This systematic review identified 33 RCTs using MHT involving 44,639 postmenopausal women with a mean age of 60.3 (range 48 to 72 years). There was no significant difference between MHT and placebo (or no treatment) in all-cause death (RR = 0.96, 95%CI 0.85 to 1.09, I = 14%) and cardiovascular events (RR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.14, I = 38%) in the overall population of postmenopausal women. However, MHT would increase the risk of stroke (RR = 1.23, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.41,I = 0%) and venous thromboembolism (RR = 1.86, 95%CI 1.39 to 2.50, I = 24%). Compared with placebo, MHT could improve flow-mediated arterial dilation (FMD) (SMD = 1.46, 95%CI 0.86 to 2.07, I = 90%), but it did not improve nitroglycerin-mediated arterial dilation (NMD) (SMD = 0.27, 95%CI - 0.08 to 0.62, I = 76%). Compared with women started MHT more than 10 years after menopause, women started MHT within 10 years after menopause had lower frequency of all-cause death (P = 0.02) and cardiovascular events (P = 0.002), and more significant improvement in FMD (P = 0.0003). Compared to mono-estrogen therapy, the combination therapy of estrogen and progesterone would not alter the outcomes of endpoint event. (all-cause death P = 0.52, cardiovascular events P = 0.90, stroke P = 0.85, venous thromboembolism P = 0.33, FMD P = 0.46, NMD P = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS
MHT improves flow-mediated arterial dilation (FMD) but fails to lower the risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, and increases the risk of stroke and venous thrombosis in postmenopausal women. Early acceptance of MHT not only reduces the risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular events but also further improves FMD, although the risk of stroke and venous thrombosis is not reduced. There is no difference in the outcome of cardiovascular system endpoints between mono-estrogen therapy and combination therapy of estrogen and progesterone.
Topics: Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Venous Thromboembolism; Postmenopause; Progesterone; Arteries; Stroke; Estrogens; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Venous Thrombosis; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 38263123
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02788-0 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most common complications after major orthopaedic surgery. Recent studies have suggested that aspirin may also be effective...
Comparison of efficacy and safety between aspirin and oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after major orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most common complications after major orthopaedic surgery. Recent studies have suggested that aspirin may also be effective in preventing VTE, but it is still controversial whether it can be routinely used. To compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin against oral anticoagulants in the prevention of VTE following total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or hip fracture surgery (HFS). Relevant publications have been obtained using electronic search databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials. gov. from inception to 20 July 2023. Only RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of aspirin compared with oral anticoagulants undergoing major orthopaedic surgery were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome reported was any VTE event (including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)). Secondary outcomes included mortality, major bleeding (including gastrointestinal bleed, cerebrovascular hemorrhage, or any bleeding requiring a return to the theater), minor bleeding (ecchymosis, epistaxis, hematuria), and wound complications. The risk of bias for all included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. After screening 974 studies, 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included, involving 5,088 participants, including 2,540 participants in aspirin, 2,205 participants in rivaroxaban, and 323 participants in warfarin. Aspirin was found to be less effective than oral anticoagulants in thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery (RR = 1.206, 95% CI 1.053-1.383). After subgroup analysis according to the type of oral anticoagulant, the results showed that aspirin was similar to rivaroxaban and inferior to warfarin. Considering that the studies in the warfarin group were all conducted before 2000, our results need to be further confirmed. In addition, the aspirin group had a higher risk of VTE than the control group in other subgroups, including a follow-up time of ≤3 months, type of procedure as TKA, high-dose aspirin (≥650 mg qd), and no combined use of mechanical prophylaxis. In terms of safety events, aspirin did not show significant differences in major bleeding (RR = 0.952, 95% CI 0.499-1.815), all-cause mortality (RR = 1.208, 95% CI 0.459-3.177), and wound-related events (RR = 0.618, 95% CI 0.333-1.145) compared with oral anticoagulants, and aspirin was associated with a reduction in the risk of minor bleeding (RR = 0.685, 95% CI 0.552-0.850) events and total bleeding (RR = 0.726, 95% CI 0.590-0.892). Aspirin reduces bleeding risk after major orthopedic surgery compared with oral anticoagulants, but may sacrifice VTE prevention to some extent. Updated evidence is needed to analyze the thromboprophylaxis effects of aspirin in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=463481, identifier CRD42023463481.
PubMed: 38259284
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1326224 -
Journal of Thoracic Disease Dec 2023Elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has been recognized, while the risk factors associated with...
BACKGROUND
Elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has been recognized, while the risk factors associated with VTE in patients with non-COVID-19 pneumonia remain to be defined. This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis and systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify potential risk factors for VTE in patients with pneumonia from the pre-COVID-19 era.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. Risk factors and odds ratio (OR) were estimated.
RESULTS
Of 595 articles identified, six studies were included. Pooled analysis suggested that age ≥60 years [OR =2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.55-2.97, P<0.001], mechanical ventilation (MV) (OR =9.48, 95% CI: 8.24-10.91, P<0.001), hypertension (OR =1.41, 95% CI: 1.09-1.83, P=0.010), diabetes (OR =1.49, 95% CI: 1.36-1.64, P<0.001), heart failure (OR =3.15, 95% CI: 1.05-9.41, P=0.040) and cancer (OR =2.86, 95% CI: 2.07-3.95, P<0.001) were associated with higher risk for deep vein thrombosis in patients with pneumonia. While age ≥60 years (OR =2.46, 95% CI: 2.21-2.73, P<0.001), bacterial pneumonia (OR =3.80, 95% CI: 1.65-8.73, P=0.002), hyperlipidemia (OR =1.55, 95% CI: 1.00-2.41, P=0.049), heart failure (OR =2.70, 95% CI: 2.05-3.56, P<0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR =4.73, 95% CI: 3.11-7.17, P<0.001) and cancer (OR =2.90, 95% CI: 2.39-3.53, P<0.001) were risk factors for pulmonary embolism in patients with pneumonia.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with non-COVID-19 pneumonia, particularly those with advanced age, MV, cardiovascular comorbidities or cancer, warrant individualized management during hospitalization. Our findings could contribute to refining risk prediction models and further risk stratification for VTE in patients with pneumonia in clinical practice.
PubMed: 38249878
DOI: 10.21037/jtd-23-926 -
North American Spine Society Journal Mar 2024Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a potentially devastating complication after surgery. Spine surgery is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a potentially devastating complication after surgery. Spine surgery is associated with an increased risk of postoperative bleeding, such as spinal epidural hematomas (SEH), which complicates the use of anticoagulation. Despite this dilemma, there is a lack of consensus around perioperative VTE prophylaxis. This systematic review investigates the relationship between chemoprophylaxis and the incidence rates of VTE and SEH in the elective spine surgical population.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies published after 2,000 that compared VTE chemoprophylaxis use in elective spine surgery. Studies involving patients aged < 18 years or with known trauma, cancer, or spinal cord injuries were excluded. Pooled incidence rates of VTE and SEH were calculated for all eligible studies, and meta-analyses were performed to assess the relationship between chemoprophylaxis and the incidences of VTE and SEH.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising a total of 220,932 patients. The overall pooled incidence of VTE was 3.2%, including 3.3% for DVT and 0.4% for PE. A comparison of VTE incidence between patients that did and did not receive chemoprophylaxis was not statistically significant (OR 0.97, p=.95, 95% CI 0.43-2.19). The overall pooled incidence of SEH was 0.4%, and there was also no significant difference between patients that did and did not receive chemoprophylaxis (OR 1.57, p=.06, 95% CI 0.99-2.50).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of perioperative chemoprophylaxis may not significantly alter rates of VTE or SEH in the elective spine surgery population. This review highlights the need for additional randomized controlled trials to better define the risks and benefits of specific chemoprophylactic protocols in various subpopulations of elective spine surgery.
PubMed: 38204918
DOI: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100295 -
Journal of Orthopaedics and... Jan 2024Several clinical investigations have compared different pharmacologic agents for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no consensus has been reached.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several clinical investigations have compared different pharmacologic agents for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no consensus has been reached. The present investigation compared enoxaparin, fondaparinux, aspirin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) commonly used as prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, setting as outcomes of interest the rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and major and minor haemorrhages.
METHODS
This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for reporting systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more drugs used for the prophylaxis of VTE following THA were accessed. PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were accessed in March 2023 with no time constraint.
RESULTS
Data from 31,705 patients were extracted. Of these, 62% (19,824) were women, with age, sex ratio, and body mass index (BMI) being comparable at baseline. Apixaban 5 mg, fondaparinux, and rivaroxaban 60 mg were the most effective in reducing the rate of DVT. Dabigatran 220 mg, apixaban 5 mg, and aspirin 100 mg were the most effective in reducing the rate of PE. Apixaban 5 mg, ximelagatran 2 mg and aspirin 100 mg were associated with the lowest rate of major haemorrhages, while rivaroxaban 2.5 mg, apixaban 5 mg and enoxaparin 40 mg were associated with the lowest rate of minor haemorrhages.
CONCLUSION
Administration of apixaban 5 mg demonstrated the best balance between VTE prevention and haemorrhage control following THA. Level of evidence Level I, network meta-analysis of RCTs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Aspirin; Enoxaparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Fondaparinux; Hemorrhage; Network Meta-Analysis; Rivaroxaban; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 38194191
DOI: 10.1186/s10195-023-00742-2