scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for postoperative thrombophylaxis in total hip and knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA-compliant Bayesian network meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0250096
Author(s):  
Tailai He ◽  
Fei Han ◽  
Jiahao Wang ◽  
Yihe Hu ◽  
Jianxi Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Anticoagulant Drugs

Objective To search, review, and analyze the efficacy and safety of various anticoagulants from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticoagulants for THA and TKA. Design PRISMA-compliant Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. Data sources and study selection The databases of The Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrial, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until March 2017 for RCTs of patients undergoing a THA or TKA. Main outcomes and measures The primary efficacy measurement was the venous thromboembolism Odds ratio (OR). The safety measurement was the odds ratio of major or clinically relevant bleeding. OR with 95% credibility intervals (95%CrIs) were calculated. Findings were interpreted as associations when the 95%CrIs excluded the null value. Results Thirty-five RCTs (53787 patients; mean age range, mostly 55–70 years; mean weight range, mostly 55–90 kg; and a higher mean proportion of women than men, around 60%) included the following Anticoagulants categories: fondaparinux, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, low-molecular-weight heparin, ximelagatran, aspirin, warfarin. Anticoagulants were ranked for effectiveness as follows: fondaparinux (88.89% ± 10.90%), edoxaban (85.87% ± 13.34%), rivaroxaban (86.08% ± 10.23%), apixaban (68.26% ± 10.82%), dabigatran (41.63% ± 12.26%), low-molecular-weight heparin (41.03% ± 9.60%), ximelagatran (37.81% ± 15.87%), aspirin (35.62% ± 20.60%), warfarin (9.89% ± 9.07%), and placebo (4.56% ± 6.37%). Ranking based on clinically relevant bleeding events was as follows: fondaparinux (14.53% ± 15.25%), ximelagatran (18.93% ± 17.49%), rivaroxaban (23.86% ± 15.14%), dabigatran (28.30% ± 14.18%), edoxaban (38.76% ± 24.25%), low-molecular-weight heparin (53.28% ± 8.40%), apixaban (71.81% ± 10.92%), placebo (76.26% ± 14.61%), aspirin (86.32% ± 25.74%), and warfarin (87.95% ± 11.27%). No statistically significant heterogeneity was observed between trials. Conclusions and relevance According to our results, all anticoagulant drugs showed some effectiveness for VTE prophylaxis. Our ranking indicated that fondaparinux and rivaroxaban were safer and more effective than other anticoagulant drugs for patients undergoing THA or TKA.

Low Molecular Weight Heparin Administered once versus twice Daily in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism

2001 ◽  
Vol 86 (10) ◽  
pp. 980-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Couturaud ◽  
Jim Julian ◽  
Clive Kearon
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Daily Administration ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Acute Venous Thromboembolism

Summary Background. Low molecular weight heparin is as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. It is uncertain whether low molecular weight heparin should be administered once-daily or twice-daily in this setting. Method. A meta-analysis of randomized studies which directly compared once- and twice-daily administration of low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism was performed. A literature search was performed using Advanced Pub Med and the Cochrane library database, and abstracts from recent meetings were reviewed. Two investigators extracted data independently. Results. Five studies, involving 1522 patients, were eligible. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequencies of symptomatic (odds ratio, 0.85 in favor of once-daily therapy at three months, p = 0.6), and asymptomatic, recurrent venous thromboembolism; total and major bleeds (odds ratio, 1.16 in favor of twice-daily therapy at 10 days, p = 0.8); and death, at 10 days, as well as at three months of follow-up. Conclusion. Once- daily low molecular weight heparin appears to be as effective and safe as twice-daily administration for the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism. However, there is inadequate data from studies that directly compared once-daily and twice-daily administration to be able to exclude the possibility of a higher frequency of fatal bleeding with once-daily therapy.

The Relationship between Use of Low Molecular Weight Heparin during Pregnancy and Risk of Peripartum Adverse Events: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaorong Y ◽  
◽  
Shan L ◽  
Shengji S ◽  
Tao S ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Premature Delivery ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Fetal Complications

Introduction: To summarize the trials investigated on relationship between low molecular weight heparin use during pregnancy and peripartum adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) on maternal and fetal complications. Methods: Electronic research was performed in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE through October 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of maternal and fetal complications during peripartum period. RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis. Results: 11 articles were finally included. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in abortion, premature delivery, stillbirth, preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage events between pregnant women who used LMWH and those who not. Conclusion: Using LMWH in pregnant women does not increase pregnancy related maternal and fetal complications.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis in the Elderly: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui-qin Yang ◽  
Man-cang Liu ◽  
Wen-jun Yin ◽  
Ling-yun Zhou ◽  
Xiao-cong Zuo
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Cumulative Probability ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Safety Outcomes

Background: Given their changing pathophysiology, elderly patients carry a high risk of embolism and bleeding events; hence, use of appropriate anticoagulants is very important. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is one of the most widely used anticoagulants although LMWHs differ in their anti-Xa, antithrombin, and anticoagulant activities. To date, no study has directly compared the safety and efficacy of different LMWHs in the elderly. We aimed to compare such differences by conducting a network meta-analysis.Methods: We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LMWHs that included patients ≥60 years old up to July 22, 2020. Safety outcomes included venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death, deep thrombus embolism, and pulmonary embolism. Safety outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding, major bleeding, minor bleeding, and all-cause death. We calculated relative ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. The cumulative ranking probabilities (SUCRA) were conducted to rank the comparative effects and safety of all LMWHs.Results: We included 27 RCTs (30,441 elderly), comprising five LMWHs. LMWH was more effective than placebo in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.53) but less effective than a novel oral anticoagulant (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.33–1.91) and safer than acenocoumarol regarding risk of clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.90). However, indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of the five LMWHs showed no significant difference in our network analysis, and the subgroup analyses (such as in patients with deep venous thrombosis, cardiac disease, or age >65 years old) supported the results. The SUCRA showed that tinzaparin performed best in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (SUCRA 68.8%, cumulative probability 42.3%) and all-cause death (SUCRA 84.2%, cumulative probability 40.7%), whereas nadroparin was predominant in decreasing the risk of clinically relevant bleeding (SUCRA 84.8%, cumulative probability 77.0%).Conclusions: On present evidence, there are no significant differences in the efficacy and safety of different LMWHs for the elderly. According to the rank probability analysis, nadroparin seems to be safer for the elderly with a high risk of bleeding, whereas tinzaparin is more effective for those with low bleeding risk.

A Meta-Analysis to Determine the Risk of Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) and Isolated Thrombocytopenia in Prophylaxis Studies Comparing Unfractioneted Heparin (UFH) and Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH).

Blood ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 2587-2587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Martel ◽  
Philip S. Wells
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract HIT is an uncommon but potentially devastating complication of anticoagulation with UFH or LMWH. The absolute risk of HIT and thrombocytopenia are not clearly defined and no summary data to provide odds ratio is available. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine and compare the incidences of HIT in surgical or medical patients receiving thromboprophylaxis with either UFH or LMWH. We searched MEDLINE-OVID and MEDLINE-PubMed using and combining the following terms: heparin induced thrombocytopenia, low molecular weight heparin, prophylaxis, randomized controlled trials, prospective studies. The function Explode was used. Search was limited to humans from 1984 to 2004. Over 400 abstracts were reviewed and then 91 articles were independently reviewed by two authors, without any restriction of article language. Included studies were those comparing prophylactic UFH and LMWH and measuring HIT (defined as platelets drop > 50% or < 100 X 109/L AND positive laboratory HIT assay) or thrombocytopenia (defined as platelets drop > 50% or < 100 X 109/L) as outcomes. Studies defining thrombocytopenia with lower thresholds were excluded because cases could have been missed. Extracted data included patient characteristics, drug regimens, HIT, thrombocytopenia and venous thromboembolism rates. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Eligible studies were included into the meta-analysis using a random-effects model to determine the odds ratio for the incidences of HIT and thrombocytopenia between UFH and LMWH. Funnel plots were made to assess possible publication bias. 17 articles were eligible with a total of 8500 patients: 2 RCTs measuring HIT; 10 RCTs measuring thrombocytopenia, and 5 prospective non-randomized studies with comparison groups measuring HIT. Three analysis were performed and all favoured the use of LMWH: 1) 2 RCTs measuring HIT showed an OR of 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01–0.77; p=0.03); 2) all 7 studies measuring HIT showed an OR of 0.11 (95%CI= 0.05–0.26; p< 0.00001); 3) 12 RCTs measuring thrombocytopenia showed an OR of 0.45 (95% CI= 0.26–0.80; p=0.006). Comparing the rates in the 7 studies measuring HIT UFH resulted in HIT in 3.4% (95%CI=2.6% to 4.3%) of cases and LMWH resulted in HIT in 0.2% (95% CI=0.1% to 0.6%), a statistically significant difference (p<0.0001). This meta-analysis confirms the lower incidences of HIT and thrombocytopenia with LMWH prophylaxis compared to UFH. Absolute rates of HIT with LMWH are very low. The HIT rates should be considered when determining the drug of choice for thromboprophylaxis in surgical and medical patients.

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for primary thrombophylaxis in patients with solid malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20595-e20595
Author(s):  
Irit Ben-Aharon ◽  
Salomon M. Stemmer ◽  
Ofer Shpilberg ◽  
Aaron Sulkes ◽  
Anat Gafter-Gvili
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Solid Malignancies ◽  
Increased Risk

e20595 Background: Patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The role of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as antithrombotic prophylaxis has been appraised in several studies, yielding conflicting results. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the addition of LMWH as primary prophylaxis in patients with solid malignancies while receiving chemotherapy. Methods: RCTs were identified by searching the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE databases and conference proceedings. Relative risks (RR) of thrombotic events, mortality as well as adverse events were estimated and pooled. Results: Nine trials met the inclusion criteria, and evaluated a total of 6691 patients. Primary prophylaxis with LMWH reduced both symptomatic VTEs: (RR 0.47, 95% CI(0.32 to 0.69)) and the rate of pulmonary embolism(PE): (RR 0.51, 95% CI(0.30 to 0.86)).Symptomatic DVT was reduced as well (RR 0.35, 95% CI(0.21 to 0.60). Meta-analysis of six trials which reported survival outcomes revealed no statistically significant benefit for LMWH in 1 year mortality rates (RR 0.93, 95% CI(0.83 to1.04)). There was no significant increase in major bleeding events. Conclusions: LMWH reduces the incidence of symptomatic VTE and PE in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer, with no apparent increase in major bleeding. Nevertheless, LMWH had no significant effect on survival outcomes. Future studies should delineate whether specific populations may derive a survival benefit from LMWH primary prophylaxis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document