Injury · 2021
Equivalence of DOACS and LMWH for thromboprophylaxis after hip fracture surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Nederpelt Charlie J, Bijman Quinten, Krijnen Pieta, Schipper Inger B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with hip fractures (HF) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In elective orthopedic surgery direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven to be similarly or more effective compared to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but DOACs are not yet approved for thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients with HF. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature comparing the effectiveness of DOACs and LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients with surgically treated HF.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. The primary outcome was the incidence of VTE (symptomatic and asymptomatic combined). Secondary outcomes were symptomatic VTE; a symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT); symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE); major, clinically relevant non-major (CRNM), and minor bleeding. Meta-analysis was performed to compare the odds of VTE and secondary outcomes between DOACs and LMWH.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 738 titles. Five studies matched inclusion criteria. In total, 4748 hip fracture patients were analyzed (DOACs: 2276 patients, LMWH: 2472 patients). The pooled odds ratio for the risk of VTE for DOAC use was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.11, p = 0.09) compared to LMWH. No statistically significant differences between DOAC and LMWH were found for asymptomatic VTE, symptomatic DVT, PE, major or CRNM bleeding, and minor bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of the literature suggests that DOACs are associated with equivalent effectiveness and safety compared to LMWH.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. The primary outcome was the incidence of VTE (symptomatic and asymptomatic combined). Secondary outcomes were symptomatic VTE; a symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT); symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE); major, clinically relevant non-major (CRNM), and minor bleeding. Meta-analysis was performed to compare the odds of VTE and secondary outcomes between DOACs and LMWH.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 738 titles. Five studies matched inclusion criteria. In total, 4748 hip fracture patients were analyzed (DOACs: 2276 patients, LMWH: 2472 patients). The pooled odds ratio for the risk of VTE for DOAC use was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.11, p = 0.09) compared to LMWH. No statistically significant differences between DOAC and LMWH were found for asymptomatic VTE, symptomatic DVT, PE, major or CRNM bleeding, and minor bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of the literature suggests that DOACs are associated with equivalent effectiveness and safety compared to LMWH.