European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2025
Efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after gynecological cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Reis Romualdo Guilherme, Soares Pinhati Matheus Eduardo, Andrade Souza Raíssa Êmily, Lage Neves Gabriel, Batista Cândido Eduardo, Lopes da Silva Filho Agnaldo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to enoxaparin, a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Cochrane Handbook guidelines and PRISMA recommendations. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing DOACs and LMWHs for postoperative VTE prophylaxis in gynecologic cancer surgeries. Outcomes included VTE incidence, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), hospital readmission, and drug adherence. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB-2 and ROBINS-I), and statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.
RESULTS: Five studies (1436 patients) were included: two RCTs and three observational studies. There was no significant difference in 30-day VTE incidence between DOAC and LMWH groups (OR, 0.55; 95 % CI, 0.17 to 1.77; P = 0.31). Similarly, major bleeding rates showed no difference (OR, 1.13; 95 % CI, 0.29 to 4.42; P = 0.90). DOACs significantly reduced CRNMB events compared to LMWHs (OR, 0.44; 95 % CI, 0.23 to 0.82; P = 0.01). Hospital readmissions (OR, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 1.41; P = 0.30) and drug adherence rates (OR, 0.95; 95 % CI, 0.36 to 2.52; P = 0.29) were comparable between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: DOACs provide a safe and effective alternative to LMWH for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in gynecologic cancer surgeries. The significant reduction in CRNMB events suggests a potential safety advantage of DOACs.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Cochrane Handbook guidelines and PRISMA recommendations. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing DOACs and LMWHs for postoperative VTE prophylaxis in gynecologic cancer surgeries. Outcomes included VTE incidence, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), hospital readmission, and drug adherence. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tools (RoB-2 and ROBINS-I), and statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.
RESULTS: Five studies (1436 patients) were included: two RCTs and three observational studies. There was no significant difference in 30-day VTE incidence between DOAC and LMWH groups (OR, 0.55; 95 % CI, 0.17 to 1.77; P = 0.31). Similarly, major bleeding rates showed no difference (OR, 1.13; 95 % CI, 0.29 to 4.42; P = 0.90). DOACs significantly reduced CRNMB events compared to LMWHs (OR, 0.44; 95 % CI, 0.23 to 0.82; P = 0.01). Hospital readmissions (OR, 0.68; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 1.41; P = 0.30) and drug adherence rates (OR, 0.95; 95 % CI, 0.36 to 2.52; P = 0.29) were comparable between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: DOACs provide a safe and effective alternative to LMWH for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in gynecologic cancer surgeries. The significant reduction in CRNMB events suggests a potential safety advantage of DOACs.