Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
Efficacy and outcomes of antiplatelet therapy versus oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Goyal Aman, Abbasi Fatima Qayyum, Tariq Muhammad Daoud, Kanagala Sai Gautham, Changez Mah I Kan, Safi Darsh, Basit Jawad, Sulaiman Samia Aziz, Marsool Mohammed Dheyaa Marsool, Daoud Mohamed, Sohail Amir H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines suggest that antiplatelet therapy (APT) is the standard of care in the absence of long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) indications in patients post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The superiority of one method over the other remains controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several databases, including MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, were electronically searched. The primary endpoint was the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/TIA, haemorrhagic stroke, bleeding events, systemic embolism, and valve thrombosis in post-TAVR patients receiving APT and oral anticoagulants (OACs). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager version 5.4, with a p value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Twelve studies were selected. No significant differences were observed in APT and OAC group for ACM [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI:0.45-1.01; P=0.05], cardiovascular death [RR:0.91; 95% CI:0.73-1.14; P=0.42], MI [RR:1.69; 95% CI:0.43-6.72; P=0.46], Stroke/TIA [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.58-1.06; P=0.12], ischaemic stroke [RR:0.83; 95% CI:0.50-1.37; P=0.47], haemorrhagic stroke [RR:1.08; 95% CI: 0.23-5.15; P=0.92], major bleeding [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.51-1.21; P=0.28], minor bleeding [RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.80-1.47; P=0.58], life-threatening bleeding [RR:0.85; 95% CI:0.55-1.30; P=0.45], any bleeding [RR:0.98; 95% CI:0.83-1.15; P=0.78], and systemic embolism [RR:0.87; 95% CI:0.44-1.70; P=0.68]. The risk of valve thrombosis was higher in patients receiving APT than in those receiving OAC [RR:2.61; 95% CI:1.56-4.36; P =0.0002].
CONCLUSIONS: Although the risk of valve thrombosis increased in patients receiving APT, the risk of other endpoints was comparable between the two groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several databases, including MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, were electronically searched. The primary endpoint was the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/TIA, haemorrhagic stroke, bleeding events, systemic embolism, and valve thrombosis in post-TAVR patients receiving APT and oral anticoagulants (OACs). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager version 5.4, with a p value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Twelve studies were selected. No significant differences were observed in APT and OAC group for ACM [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI:0.45-1.01; P=0.05], cardiovascular death [RR:0.91; 95% CI:0.73-1.14; P=0.42], MI [RR:1.69; 95% CI:0.43-6.72; P=0.46], Stroke/TIA [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.58-1.06; P=0.12], ischaemic stroke [RR:0.83; 95% CI:0.50-1.37; P=0.47], haemorrhagic stroke [RR:1.08; 95% CI: 0.23-5.15; P=0.92], major bleeding [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.51-1.21; P=0.28], minor bleeding [RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.80-1.47; P=0.58], life-threatening bleeding [RR:0.85; 95% CI:0.55-1.30; P=0.45], any bleeding [RR:0.98; 95% CI:0.83-1.15; P=0.78], and systemic embolism [RR:0.87; 95% CI:0.44-1.70; P=0.68]. The risk of valve thrombosis was higher in patients receiving APT than in those receiving OAC [RR:2.61; 95% CI:1.56-4.36; P =0.0002].
CONCLUSIONS: Although the risk of valve thrombosis increased in patients receiving APT, the risk of other endpoints was comparable between the two groups.