Thromb Haemostasis
-
Review Meta Analysis
Thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
It was the aim of the review to determine the risks and benefits of primary thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants in cancer patients with central venous devices. Medline, Central and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in June 2006. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised the quality of RCTs. ⋯ The use of anticoagulants showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of overall bleeding (5 trials, 1,193 patients, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.84-1.82, p = 0.28), and thrombocytopenia for heparin versus placebo (4 trials, 958 patients, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.49, 1.46, p = 0.55) without any statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). In cancer patients with central venous devices, thromboprophylaxis has no significant effect on the risk of catheter related thrombosis or bleeding. The use of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters while not causing any harm provides no benefit.
-
Review Meta Analysis
The role of heparin and allied compounds in the treatment of sepsis.
The crosstalk between coagulation and inflammation and the propensity for microthromboembolic disease during sepsis calls for anticoagulant measures to prevent tissue hypoxygenation and to attenuate organ damage and dysfunction. Only one anticoagulant, recombinant human activated protein C (aPC, drotrecogin-alpha) has a proven survival benefit when used as an adjunctive therapy for human sepsis, partly because of its anti-inflammatory effect. ⋯ In any case, the results of a meta-analysis based on animal data suggest a potentially life-saving effect of heparin (-like compounds) in the treatment of sepsis. Therefore, a prospective randomized clinical trial is called upon to study effects in human sepsis.
-
Meta Analysis
Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after orthopaedic surgery: pooled analysis of two studies.
Rivaroxaban (BAY 59-7939) is an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor in clinical development for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This analysis of pooled results from two phase II studies of rivaroxaban for VTE prevention after major orthopaedic surgery aimed to strengthen the conclusions of the individual studies. One study was conducted in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR; N = 722), and one in patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR; N = 621). ⋯ Major bleeding (safety population, n = 1,317) increased dose-dependently with rivaroxaban (p < 0.001), occurring in 0.9%, 1.3%, 2.1%, 3.9%, and 7.0% of patients receiving rivaroxaban total daily doses of 5, 10, 20, 40, and 60 mg, respectively, versus 1.7% of patients receiving enoxaparin. No routine coagulation monitoring was performed, and there were no significant differences between dose response relationships with rivaroxaban after THR and TKR. Overall, rivaroxaban total daily doses of 5-20 mg had the most favorable balance of efficacy and safety, relative to enoxaparin, for the prevention of VTE after major orthopaedic surgery.
-
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Clinical relevance of distal deep vein thrombosis. Review of literature data.
The standard diagnostic approach of suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is serial lower limb compression ultrasound (CUS) of proximal veins. Although it only assesses the proximal veins, withholding anticoagulant treatment in patients with a negative CUS on day one and after one week has been proven to be safe. However, in many centres, distal DVT is systematically screened for and treated by anticoagulants. ⋯ Therefore, searching for distal DVT potentially doubles the number of patients given anticoagulant therapy and entails a risk of over-treatment. Data suggesting that anticoagulation is indicated for distal DVT are limited, and realizing distal CUS entails a risk of over-treatment. There is an urgent need for randomised trials assessing the usefulness of anticoagulant treatment in distal DVT.
-
The use of warfarin with a range INR of 2.0-3.0 is recommended in prevention of stroke for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, in particular those older than 75 years. The risk of bleeding that is associated with this range of INR has led to evaluate lower ranges (low-dose or fixed minidose) in terms of risks and benefits. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials evaluating 'low-intensity' 'minidose' or 'low-dose anticoagulant' treatment for prevention of thromboembolic events in AF was conducted by two independent reviewers. ⋯ Inversely lower dose did not statistically decrease the risk for major hemorrhage compared to adjusted-dose: RR adjusted-dose vs lower dose: 1.23 (95% CI; 0.67-2.27). The RR was 0.97 (95 % CI 0.27-3.54) for hemorrhagic death. Our meta-analysis showed that adjusted-dose compared with low-dose or minidose warfarin therapy (INR < or =1.6) was more effective to prevent ischemic thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation.