scholarly journals Erratum to “A Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Incidence of Bleeding Events With Intravenous Defibrotide Treatment Outside the Veno-Occlusive Disease/Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome Setting”

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 107602962096532
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Occlusive Disease ◽  
Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome ◽  
Bleeding Events

scholarly journals A Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Incidence of Bleeding Events With Intravenous Defibrotide Treatment Outside the Veno-Occlusive Disease/Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome Setting

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 107602962093520
Author(s):  
William Tappe ◽  
Saurabh Aggarwal ◽  
Ozlem Topaloglu ◽  
Massimo Iacobelli
Keyword(s):  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
The United States ◽  
Occlusive Disease ◽  
Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Prescribing Information

Defibrotide is approved to treat hepatic veno-occlusive disease/sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (VOD/SOS) with renal/pulmonary dysfunction following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in adult and pediatric patients in the United States, and to treat severe hepatic VOD/SOS post-HCT in adult and pediatric patients aged >1 month in the European Union. The defibrotide prescribing information warns that defibrotide may increase bleeding risk in VOD/SOS patients. To broaden our understanding of the incidence of bleeding with defibrotide, we performed a meta-analysis of the published literature of defibrotide use outside of the post-HCT VOD/SOS setting. Of 1857 records identified, 125 reported on defibrotide; 23 contained data on bleeding events. The estimated overall incidence of bleeding events was 1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0%-2%) and 8% (95% CI: 3%-14%) in studies using intravenous defibrotide and studies with controls, respectively. The risk ratio for bleeding events with intravenous defibrotide versus controls was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.24-0.52; P < .00001) among studies with data on intravenous defibrotide and controls. This meta-analysis of defibrotide use outside of the post-HCT VOD/SOS setting suggests that the incidence of bleeding with defibrotide is lower than controls.

scholarly journals Complications of Outpatient and Inpatient Renal Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 651
Author(s):  
Shih-Yi Lin ◽  
Cherry Yin-Yi Chang ◽  
Cheng-Chieh Lin ◽  
Wu-Huei Hsu ◽  
I.-Wen Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Biopsy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Renal Biopsies ◽  
Inpatient Settings

Background: The evidence indicates that the optimal observation period following renal biopsy ranges between 6 and 8 h. This systematic review and meta-analysis explored whether differences exist in the complication rates of renal biopsies performed in outpatient and inpatient settings. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1985 to February 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies evaluating the bleeding risk from renal biopsies performed in outpatient and inpatient settings and reviewed their full texts. The primary and secondary outcomes were risks of bleeding and major events (including mortality) following the procedure, respectively. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the original study design (i.e., prospective or retrospective). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effect meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Results: Data from all 10 eligible studies, which included a total of 1801 patients and 203 bleeding events, were included for analysis. Renal biopsies in outpatient settings were not associated with a higher bleeding risk than those in inpatient settings (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59–1.11; I2 = 0%). The risk of major events was also comparable across both groups (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16–1.29; I2 = 4%). Conclusions: Similar rates of bleeding and major events following renal biopsy in outpatient and inpatient settings were observed.

Sulodexide versus Control and the Risk of Thrombotic and Hemorrhagic Events: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (08) ◽  
pp. 908-918
Author(s):  
Behnood Bikdeli ◽  
Saurav Chatterjee ◽  
Ajay J. Kirtane ◽  
Sahil A. Parikh ◽  
Giuseppe M. Andreozzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Dermatan Sulfate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
All Cause Mortality

AbstractThrombotic cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and venous thromboembolism [VTE]) remains a major cause of death and disability. Sulodexide is an oral glycosaminoglycan containing heparan sulfate and dermatan sulfate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cardiovascular efficacy, and safety of sulodexide versus control in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs reporting cardiovascular outcomes in patients receiving sulodexide versus control (placebo or no treatment). Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. We used inverse variance random-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. After screening 360 records, 6 RCTs including 7,596 patients (median follow-up duration: 11.6 months) were included. Patients were enrolled for history of MI, VTE, peripheral arterial disease, or cardiovascular risk factors plus nephropathy. Use of sulodexide compared with control was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.85, p = 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.89, p = 0.02), and MI (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51–0.96, p = 0.03), and nonsignificantly reduced odds of stroke (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45–1.35, p = 0.38). Sulodexide was associated with significantly reduced odds of VTE (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24–0.81, p = 0.008), including DVT (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26–0.65, p < 0.001), but not pulmonary embolism (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.40–2.15, p = 0.86). Bleeding events were not significantly different in the two groups (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.47–2.74, p = 0.48). In six RCTs across a variety of clinical indications, use of sulodexide compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, and DVT, without a significant increase in bleeding. Additional studies with this agent are warranted.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data After Kissing Stent Treatment for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Groot Jebbink ◽  
Suzanne Holewijn ◽  
Michel Versluis ◽  
Frederike Grimme ◽  
Jan Willem Hinnen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ankle Brachial Index ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Occlusive Disease ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Secondary Patency ◽  
Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Stent Treatment ◽  
Kissing Stent

Purpose: To evaluate short- and long-term technical and clinical outcomes after kissing stent treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) based on an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: A search of the Scopus database identified 156 articles on KS treatment of AIOD; of these 22 met the inclusion criteria. Authors of 19 articles with contact information were approached to join an IPD consortium. Eight author groups responded and 5 provided anonymized data for merging into an IPD database. The number of included procedures was equal before and after 2005. The primary study outcome was the cumulative patency at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were patency at up to 60 months, complications, and changes in Rutherford category and ankle-brachial index. The predictive value of stent protrusion length, pre-/postdilation, stent type, and patient demographics on primary patency were examined with Cox proportional hazard modeling; outcomes are reported as the hazard ratio (HR). The Kaplan-Meier method was employed to estimate patency rates. Results: In total, 605 (40.9%) of 1480 patients presented in the literature were included in the IPD analysis. The indication for intervention was intermittent claudication in 84.2% and critical limb ischemia in 15.8%. Lesions were classified as TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) A or B in 52.8% and TASC C and D in 47.2%. The overall primary patency estimate was 81% at 24 months. Primary patency significantly increased after 2005 (p=0.005). Cox regression analysis revealed only age as a significant predictor of sustained primary patency (HR 0.60, p<0.005). Any previous endovascular intervention (HR 2.52, p=0.02) was the main predictor for loss of secondary patency; history of cardiovascular disease (HR 0.27, p=0.04) was the main predictor of sustained secondary patency. Conclusion: The kissing stent technique has a good safety profile and acceptable patency rates up to 2 years, even in TASC C and D lesions, supporting an endovascular-first approach for AIOD.

scholarly journals Intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for coagulopathy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sirui Zhang ◽  
Yupei Li ◽  
Guina Liu ◽  
Baihai Su
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Therapeutic Anticoagulation ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Prophylactic Anticoagulation

Abstract Background Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal anticoagulant strategy has not yet been defined. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis on the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 10th 2021. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Baseline characteristics and relevant data of each study were extracted in a pre-designed standardized data-collection form. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were incidence of thrombotic events and incidence of any bleeding and major bleeding. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk with 95 % CIs. Results This meta-analysis included 42 studies with 28,055 in-hospital COVID-19 patients totally. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR=1.12, 95 %CI 0.99-1.25, p=0.06, I2=77 %) and lower incidence of thrombotic events (RR=1.30, 95 %CI 0.79-2.15, p=0.30, I2=88 %), but increased the risk of any bleeding events (RR=2.16, 95 %CI 1.79-2.60, p<0.01, I2=31 %) and major bleeding events significantly (RR=2.10, 95 %CI 1.77-2.51, p<0.01, I2=11 %) versus prophylactic anticoagulation. Moreover, intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation decreased the incidence of thrombotic events (RR=0.71, 95 %CI 0.56-0.89, p=0.003, I2=0 %) among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), with increased bleeding risk (RR=1.66, 95 %CI 1.37-2.00, p<0.01, I2=0 %) and unchanged in-hospital mortality (RR=0.94, 95 %CI 0.79-1.10, p=0.42, I2=30 %) in such patients. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Conclusions We recommend the use of prophylactic anticoagulation against intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation among unselected hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering insignificant survival benefits but higher risk of bleeding in the escalated thromboprophylaxis strategy. For critically ill COVID-19 patients, the benefits of intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation in reducing thrombotic events should be weighed cautiously because of its association with higher risk of bleeding. Trial registration The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on August 17th 2021 (CRD42021273780). Graphical abstract

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Long‐Term Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Network Meta‐analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Houyong Zhu ◽  
Xiaoqun Xu ◽  
Xiaojiang Fang ◽  
Fei Ying ◽  
Liuguang Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
High Risk Factors ◽  
Cerebrovascular Events

Background Long‐term antithrombotic strategies for patients with chronic coronary syndrome with high‐risk factors represent an important treatment dilemma in clinical practice. Our aim was to conduct a network meta‐analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of long‐term antithrombotic strategies in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Methods and Results Four randomized studies were included (n=75167; THEMIS [Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study], COMPASS [Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies], PEGASUS‐TIMI 54 [Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54], and DAPT [Dual Anti‐platelet Therapy]). The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs) were calculated as the measure of effect size. The results of the network meta‐analysis showed that, compared with aspirin monotherapy, the ORs for trial‐defined major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were 0.86; (95% CI, 0.80–0.93) for ticagrelor plus aspirin, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78–1.02) for rivaroxaban monotherapy, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64–0.85) for rivaroxaban plus aspirin, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60,–0.86) for thienopyridine plus aspirin. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, the ORs for trial‐defined major bleeding were 2.15 (95% CI, 1.78–2.59]) for ticagrelor plus aspirin, 1.51 (95% CI, 1.23–1.85) for rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.37–2.05) for rivaroxaban plus aspirin. For death from any cause, the improvement effect of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was detected versus aspirin monotherapy (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65–0.90), ticagrelor plus aspirin (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.95), rivaroxaban monotherapy (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.97), and thienopyridine plus aspirin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41–0.82) regimens. Conclusions All antithrombotic strategies combined with aspirin significantly reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and increased the risk of major bleeding compared with aspirin monotherapy. Considering the outcomes of all ischemic and bleeding events and all‐cause mortality, rivaroxaban plus aspirin appears to be the preferred long‐term antithrombotic regimen for patients with chronic coronary syndrome and high‐risk factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document