International angiology : a journal of the International Union of Angiology
-
The use of a venoactive drug is considered an important component of medical treatment of chronic venous disease (CVD), although the efficacy of certain venoactive drugs (VADs) on one or more individual leg symptoms or signs may have not been extensively studied to justify a strong recommendation in guidelines on CVD. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study the effectiveness of the micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF, Daflon®) across the spectrum of defined venous symptoms, signs, quality of life (QoL) and treatment assessment by the physician. ⋯ Based on high quality evidence, MPFF is highly effective in improving leg symptoms, edema and quality of life in patients with CVD.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for extended venous thromboembolism treatment: network meta-analysis.
Many new oral anticoagulants (NOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) are currently available to treat thromboembolic disease. There are no head-to-head trials comparing these agents. To assess the efficacy and safety of NOACs for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), we performed a network meta-analysis. ⋯ There were no significant differences in risk for recurrent VTE, major bleeding, or all-cause mortality between the NOACs. However, apixaban 2.5 mg BID was associated with less clinically significant non-major bleeding than either rivaroxaban 20 mg daily or dabigatran 150 mg BID.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Comparison of efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation using network meta-analysis.
A network meta-analysis of the three new oral anticoagulants was performed from the three trials comparing dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. ⋯ All-cause mortality was not different for any agent or regimen. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, this network meta-analysis suggests that apixaban and dabigatran 110 mg bid may offer the best benefit-risk balance for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Dabigatran 150 mg bid may be preferred for patients with a high risk for embolism.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism: low molecular weight heparin compared to the selective anticoagulants rivaroxaban, dabigatran and fondaparinux.
Newer therapeutic options available in the prevention of postoperative thromboembolism, currently focused on fondaparinux, rivaroxaban and dabigatran warrant an overall therapeutic assessment. The constitutive comparisons with enoxaparin are based on a combined outcome measure solely driven by the incidence of "asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis". Its validity as a clinically relevant endpoint is missing if antithrombotics of different classes are compared. ⋯ Their class-specific limitations are compensated through more intensive dosage-regimens which result in accentuated bleeding complications. Connotatively the hypothesis emerged that antiXa- and IIa-effects interact synergistically which translates into enhanced efficacy and tolerance. Experimental studies on hirudin with pentasaccharide and hirudin with "lower low molecular weight heparin" (3KDA) support such rationale.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid angioplasty with or without stenting for treatment of carotid artery stenosis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular techniques with surgery for carotid stenosis. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CAS with CEA. ⋯ In conclusion treating carotid artery stenosis with CAS offers lower rates of cranial nerve injury compared with CEA. CAS could not be proved to be as safe as CEA in treating carotid artery stenosis. The results of ongoing randomized trials comparing CAS with CEA are easily awaited because they may provide sufficient evidence for a change in clinical practice.