-
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Apr 2024Cerebral venous thromboembolism (CVT) poses a significant risk of venous infarction and haemorrhage, which can lead to neurological deficits and, in severe cases, even... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cerebral venous thromboembolism (CVT) poses a significant risk of venous infarction and haemorrhage, which can lead to neurological deficits and, in severe cases, even death. The optimal treatment regimen for patients with CVT remains unclear.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS), and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with CVT. All-site venous thromboembolism (VTE), risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding, incidence of partial recanalization, complete recanalization and major haemorrhage were among outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
The analysis included 1 RCT and 3 observational studies containing 211 patients. Compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), rivaroxaban did not significantly decrease the all-site VTE [RR 0.31 (95% CI 0.01, 8.43); =0.49, I=0%]. Compared with VKAs, patients on rivaroxaban did not show a significantly reduced risk of recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis. In terms of incidence of partial recanalization, there was no discernible difference between rivaroxaban and VKAs [RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.66, 1.22); =0.49, I=0%]. There was no discernible difference in incidence of complete recanalization [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.32, 3.03); =0.97, I=28%] and incidence of major haemorrhage [RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.01, 4.54); =0.30].
CONCLUSION
Rivaroxaban was found to have similar efficacy to VKAs. Due to its lower risk of severe bleeding and no need for INR monitoring, rivaroxaban may be a preferable treatment option for CVT.
PubMed: 38576935
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001689 -
JACC. CardioOncology Feb 2024Current guidelines recommend several direct oral anticoagulant agents (DOACs) equally for managing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE).
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend several direct oral anticoagulant agents (DOACs) equally for managing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with active cancer.
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central in November 2022. Randomized controlled trials investigating anticoagulation strategies (vitamin K antagonists, parenteral anticoagulation [eg, low-molecular weight heparin], and DOACs) for VTE in patients with active cancer were identified for network meta-analysis. The outcomes included recurrent VTE, recurrent pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep venous thrombosis, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and a composite outcome of major bleeding or CRNMB. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using either the HR or relative risk provided from each study. Random-effects models were used for all the analyses.
RESULTS
Seventeen randomized controlled trials involving 6,623 patients with active cancer were included. No significant differences were found among the DOACs for efficacy outcomes (recurrent VTE, pulmonary embolism, and deep venous thrombosis). In terms of major bleeding, apixaban was similarly safe compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban but was associated with a decreased risk compared with edoxaban (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.15-0.93). Regarding CRNMB, edoxaban was similarly safe compared with apixaban but was associated with a decreased risk compared with rivaroxaban (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.10-0.91). Compared with parenteral anticoagulation, apixaban was associated with a reduced risk for recurrent VTE (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.38-0.93) without increasing bleeding, edoxaban was associated with an increased risk for major bleeding or CRNMB (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.02-1.79), and rivaroxaban was associated with an increased risk for CRNMB (HR: 3.76; 95% CI: 1.43-9.88).
CONCLUSIONS
DOACs demonstrate comparable efficacy but exhibit different safety profiles. Apixaban may confer an antithrombotic benefit without an increased risk for bleeding, distinguishing it from other contemporary anticoagulation strategies in patients with active cancer and VTE.
PubMed: 38510285
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccao.2023.10.009 -
The American Journal of Cardiology May 2024Left atrial or left atrial appendage thrombosis (LAT) is contraindicated for cardiac ablation (CA) or cardioversion (CV) of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Atrial Thrombosis Prevalence Before Cardioversion or Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists.
Left atrial or left atrial appendage thrombosis (LAT) is contraindicated for cardiac ablation (CA) or cardioversion (CV) of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was aimed to compare the frequency of LAT detected by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) before CA or CV in patients with AF treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochran Library databases from inception through July 13, 2023 to select studies reporting data on LAT identification before CA or CV using TEE in patients with AF treated with DOACs or VKAs. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval were calculated with a random-effects model. Studies retrieved were 50 (38 observational), 29 on CA, 15 on CV, and 6 on both procedures (17,096 patients on DOACs and 13,666 on VKAs). The overall prevalence of LAT was smaller in DOACs than in VKAs, with an OR of 0.66 (0.52 to 0.84), confirmed at sensitivity analysis and in most subgroups. This finding was consistent for the 3 most reported DOACs: the pooled OR for LAT was 0.68 (0.50 to 0.90) in apixaban, 0.67 (0.51 to 0.88) in dabigatran, 0.61 (0.43 to 0.89) in rivaroxaban, and 1.10 (0.74 to 1.64) in edoxaban (not significant). In conclusion, in this large meta-analysis in patients with AF, the prevalence of LAT by TEE evaluation performed before CV or CA appears lower in those treated with DOACs than in those on VKAs. Additional research may help in better understanding differences between these classes of anticoagulant drugs in the setting of protection against AF-related left atrial thrombotic formation.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Prevalence; Anticoagulants; Thrombosis; Heart Diseases; Catheter Ablation; Vitamin K; Administration, Oral; Stroke
PubMed: 38458580
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.02.042 -
Critical Care Medicine May 2024Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) is recommended for rapid reversal of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin, yet optimal dosing remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) is recommended for rapid reversal of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin, yet optimal dosing remains uncertain.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review was conducted of PubMed, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE (Wolters Kluwer) databases from January 2000 to August 2023 for clinical studies comparing fixed- vs. variable-dose 4-PCC for emergent VKA reversal with at least one reported clinical outcome.
STUDY SELECTION
Abstracts and full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers using predefined extraction forms.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The analysis comprised three randomized trials and 16 cohort studies comprising a total of 323 participants in randomized trials (161 in fixed dosage and 162 in variable dosage) and 1912 patients in cohort studies (858 in fixed-dose and 1054 in variable dose). Extracranial bleeding was the predominant indication, while intracranial hemorrhage varied. Overall, a fixed-dose regimen may be associated with a lower dose of 4-PCC and results in a reduction in 4-PCC administration time compared with a variable-dose regimen. A fixed-dose regimen also likely results in increased clinical hemostasis. While there is no clear difference between the two regimens in terms of achieving a goal international normalized ratio (INR) less than 2, a fixed-dose regimen is less likely to achieve a goal INR less than 1.5. High certainty evidence indicates that the fixed-dose regimen reduces both mortality and the occurrence of thromboembolic events. Additional subgroup analyses provides exploratory data to guide future studies.
CONCLUSIONS
A fixed-dose regimen for 4-PCC administration provides benefits over a variable-dose regimen in terms of dose reduction, faster administration time, improved clinical hemostasis, and reduced mortality and thromboembolic events. Further studies are warranted to better refine the optimal fixed-dose regimen.
Topics: Humans; Blood Coagulation Factors; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Thromboembolism; International Normalized Ratio; Fibrinolytic Agents; Vitamin K; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38353592
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006212 -
International Journal of Heart Failure Jan 2024Atrial fibrillation is common in patients with cardiac amyloidosis. However, the optimal anticoagulation strategy to prevent thromboembolic events in patients with...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Atrial fibrillation is common in patients with cardiac amyloidosis. However, the optimal anticoagulation strategy to prevent thromboembolic events in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and atrial fibrillation is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and atrial fibrillation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review to identify clinical studies of anticoagulation therapies for patients with cardiac amyloidosis and atrial fibrillation. The primary outcomes of major bleeding and thrombotic events were reported using random effects risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Our search yielded 97 potential studies and evaluated 14 full-text articles based on title and abstract. We excluded 10 studies that were review articles or did not compare anticoagulation. We included 4 studies reporting on 1,579 patients. The pooled estimates are likely underpowered due to small sample sizes. There was no difference in bleeding events for patients with cardiac amyloidosis and atrial fibrillation treated with DOACs compared to VKAs with a RR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38-1.10; p=0.10). There were decreased thrombotic events for patients with cardiac amyloidosis and atrial fibrillation treated with DOACs compared to VKAs with a RR of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.32-0.79; p=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that DOACs are as safe and effective as VKAs in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and atrial fibrillation. However, more data are needed to investigate clinical differences in anticoagulation therapy in this patient population.
PubMed: 38303916
DOI: 10.36628/ijhf.2023.0031 -
BMJ Open Jan 2024The objective of the current study is to compare the treatment effects of different vitamins on essential hypertension to provide an initial basis for developing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the current study is to compare the treatment effects of different vitamins on essential hypertension to provide an initial basis for developing evidence-based practices.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched from their inception to 25 September 2023.
OUTCOMES
The primary outcomes were the difference between the intervention group and the control group in changes in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) and office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline. The secondary outcomes were the difference between the intervention group and the control group in changes in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (24 hours SBP), 24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (24 hours DBP) and heart rate (HR) from baseline.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies comparing five vitamins (vitamin B, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, folic acid) and involving 2218 participants were included. The included trials were all vitamin versus placebo, so the network was star-shaped. Among the five vitamins, only vitamin E was significantly more effective at reducing SBP (mean difference: -14.14 mm Hg, 95% credible intervals: -27.62 to -0.88) than placebo. In addition, no evidence was found that any of the five vitamins influenced DBP, 24 hours SBP, 24 hours DBP, or HR. The dose of vitamins, geographical region and percentage of males (only SBP) might be sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis revealed that the effect of vitamin intervention on blood pressure varies according to different doses of vitamins.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the results, vitamin E might be an effective measure to reduce SBP, but more research is needed to validate this finding.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022352332.
Topics: Adult; Male; Humans; Vitamin D; Ascorbic Acid; Hypertension; Folic Acid; Riboflavin; Vitamin E; Network Meta-Analysis; Vitamins; Essential Hypertension; Blood Pressure; Vitamin A; Vitamin K
PubMed: 38296289
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074511 -
Journal of Nutritional Science 2024Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the most important diseases which controlling its related risk factors, such as metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers, is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the most important diseases which controlling its related risk factors, such as metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers, is necessary because of the increased mortality risk of that. The aim of our meta-analysis is to reveal the general effect of vitamin K supplementation on its related risk factors. Original databases were searched using standard keywords to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of vitamin K on CVD. Pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were achieved by random-model effect analysis for the best estimation of outcomes. The statistical heterogeneity was determined using the Cochran's test and statistics. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled findings showed that vitamin K supplementation can reduce homeostatic model assessment insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD: -0⋅24, 95 % CI: -0⋅49, -0⋅02, = 0⋅047) significantly compared to the placebo group. However, no significant effect was observed on other outcomes. Subgroup analysis showed a significant effect of vitamin K2 supplementation compared to vitamin K1 supplementation on HOMA-IR. However, no significant effect was observed on other variables. Also, subgroup analysis showed no potential effect of vitamin K supplementation on any outcome and omitting any articles did not affect the final results. We demonstrated that supplementation with vitamin K has no effect on anthropometrics indexes, CRP, glucose metabolism, and lipid profile factors except HOMA-IR.
Topics: Humans; Dietary Supplements; Vitamin K; Blood Glucose; Insulin Resistance; Cardiovascular Diseases
PubMed: 38282652
DOI: 10.1017/jns.2023.106 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis Mar 2024In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and normal or slightly impaired renal function, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is preferable to vitamin K... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation and stage 5 chronic kidney disease under dialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and normal or slightly impaired renal function, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). However, in patients undergoing hemodialysis, the efficacy, and safety of DOACs compared with VKAs are still unknown.
PURPOSE
To review current evidence about the safety and efficacy of DOACs compared to VKAs, in patients with AF and chronic kidney disease under hemodialysis.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for RCTs comparing DOACs with VKAs for anticoagulation in patients with AF on dialysis therapy. Outcomes of interest were: (1) stroke; (2) major bleeding; (3) cardiovascular mortality; and (4) all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1.7 and heterogeneity was assessed by I statistics.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials were included, comprising a total of 383 patients. Of these, 218 received DOACs (130 received apixaban; 88 received rivaroxaban), and 165 were treated with VKAs (116 received warfarin; 49 received phenprocoumon). The incidence of stroke was significantly lower in patients treated with DOACs (4.7%) compared with those using VKAs (9.5%) (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.18-0.97; p = 0.04; I = 0%). However, the difference was not statistically significant in the case of ischemic stroke specifically (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.17-1.04; p = 0.06; I = 0%). As for the major bleeding outcome, the DOAC group (11%) had fewer events than the VKA group (13.9%) but without statistical significance (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.45-1.28; p = 0.29; I = 0%). There was no significant difference between groups regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.66-2.29; p = 0.52; I = 13%) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77-1.24; p = 0.84; I = 16%).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that in patients with AF on dialysis, the use of DOACs was associated with a significant reduction in stroke, and a numerical trend of less incidence of major bleeding compared with VKAs, but in this case with no statistical significance. Results may be limited by a small sample size or insufficient statistical power.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Renal Dialysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Stroke; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Fibrinolytic Agents; Vitamin K; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 38281231
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-023-02945-0 -
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 -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Mar 2024Sex, age, medical history, treatment, tobacco use, and race (SAMe-TTR) score helps detect patients at risk of suboptimal anticoagulation control. A score above two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sex, age, medical history, treatment, tobacco use, and race (SAMe-TTR) score helps detect patients at risk of suboptimal anticoagulation control. A score above two suggests poor control; however, non-Caucasian status being assigned two points might hinder the recognition of poor control in patients of other races.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the SAMe-TTR score's ability to predict poor anticoagulation control [defined as time in therapeutic range (TTR) < 60-70%] in Asian and non-Asian populations on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, SpringerLink, and Web of Science using the keyword "SAMe-TTR." Articles published before April 2022 were screened. We gathered mean TTR and diagnostic accuracy data for different SAMe-TTR thresholds and conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies were included (N = 36,690). The overall mean TTR differences were - 4.88 and - 6.41 for the cutoffs of ≥ 3 and ≥ 4, respectively. For non-Asian patients, the mean TTR differences were - 3.86, - 5.12, and - 8.09 for the cutoffs ≥ 2, ≥ 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. For Asian patients, the mean TTR differences were - 3.99 and - 4.07 for the cut-offs ≥ 3 and ≥ 4, respectively. The highest positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for the Asian subgroup was 1.17 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.28; I = 0%, p heterogeneity = 0.500] at cutoff ≥ 4 and for the non-Asian subgroup, at cut-off ≥ 3, the LR+ was 1.24 (95% CI 1.14-1.34; I = 0% p heterogeneity = 0.455). The lowest LR- was found at a lower cutoff for both races (at cutoff ≥ 3 and ≥ 2 for Asian and non-Asian subgroups, respectively). The pooled results of other accuracy parameters were modest at all cutoffs, except for the sensitivity at cutoff ≥ 3 in the Asian subgroup (83.05%).
CONCLUSION
Our study results suggest that a higher SAMe-TTR score resulted in a greater reduction of TTR among Asian and all races. The accuracy parameters showed the highest sensitivity for poor TTR at the SAMe-TTR cutoff of ≥ 3 for Asian patients. However, the ability to identify patients likely to have poor TTR was limited. Further research is needed to enhance the risk assessment for poor anticoagulation control with VKAs.
REGISTRATION
The protocol of this systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Scientific Reviews: PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021291865.
Topics: Humans; Stroke; Atrial Fibrillation; Risk Factors; Vitamin K; Anticoagulants; International Normalized Ratio
PubMed: 38252269
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-023-00623-3