Thrombosis research · 2026
Comparing perioperative heparin bridging strategies in mechanical heart valve patients undergoing surgery: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Batista Pedro Gomes, Montenegro Marcela Vasconcelos, Gaelzer Giulia Caldeira, Molinari Maria Eduarda, Malik Mushrin, Silva Railla Raquel Albino Dos Santos, de Lucena Larissa Araujo, Bacca Caroline O Fischer, Giorgi Juliana
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Perioperative heparin bridging in surgical mechanical heart valve (MHV) patients aims to prevent thromboembolism but risks bleeding. Addressing a lack of comparative data, this study synthesizes current literature to evaluate the net clinical outcomes of bridging versus no bridging.
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis providing clinically actionable estimates of the benefits and risks of perioperative bridging in surgical MHV patients.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing heparin bridging versus no bridging in surgical MHV patients. We used a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Posterior probabilities were then calculated to assess the treatment benefit or harm.
RESULTS: Four studies comprising 1847 patients (64.48% bridged) met the inclusion criteria. The estimated RR for thromboembolism was 1.36 (95% CrI, 0.27 to 6.97), with only a 35.1% posterior probability of risk reduction (RR ≤ 1), suggesting no clear benefit. All-cause mortality estimates were uncertain (RR, 0.68; 95% CrI, 0.12 to 3.90). Conversely, safety endpoints yielded high probabilities of hemorrhagic complications. The RR for major bleeding was 2.04 (95% CrI, 0.81 to 5.14), carrying an 82.5% probability of clinically meaningful harm (RR > 1.33). Minor bleeding showed a similar pattern (RR, 1.53; 95% CrI, 0.61 to 3.93).
CONCLUSIONS: Routine perioperative heparin bridging in surgical MHV patients increases bleeding risk without meaningful thromboembolic benefit, supporting a shift toward selective, risk-adapted management.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identifier no. CRD420261359162.
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis providing clinically actionable estimates of the benefits and risks of perioperative bridging in surgical MHV patients.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing heparin bridging versus no bridging in surgical MHV patients. We used a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Posterior probabilities were then calculated to assess the treatment benefit or harm.
RESULTS: Four studies comprising 1847 patients (64.48% bridged) met the inclusion criteria. The estimated RR for thromboembolism was 1.36 (95% CrI, 0.27 to 6.97), with only a 35.1% posterior probability of risk reduction (RR ≤ 1), suggesting no clear benefit. All-cause mortality estimates were uncertain (RR, 0.68; 95% CrI, 0.12 to 3.90). Conversely, safety endpoints yielded high probabilities of hemorrhagic complications. The RR for major bleeding was 2.04 (95% CrI, 0.81 to 5.14), carrying an 82.5% probability of clinically meaningful harm (RR > 1.33). Minor bleeding showed a similar pattern (RR, 1.53; 95% CrI, 0.61 to 3.93).
CONCLUSIONS: Routine perioperative heparin bridging in surgical MHV patients increases bleeding risk without meaningful thromboembolic benefit, supporting a shift toward selective, risk-adapted management.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identifier no. CRD420261359162.