Frontiers in medicine · 2022
Tenecteplase in Pulmonary Embolism Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Zhang Zhu, Xi Linfeng, Zhang Shuai, Zhang Yunxia, Fan Guohui, Tao Xincao, Gao Qian, Xie Wanmu, Yang Peiran, Zhai Zhenguo, Wang Chen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).
METHODS: We completed the literature search on May 31, 2021 using PubMed, EMBASE and the Web of Science. Analyses were conducted according to PE risk stratification, study design and duration of follow-up. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) and its 95% confident intervals (CIs) for death and major bleeding were calculated using a random-effect model.
RESULTS: A total of six studies, with four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two cohort studies, were included in this study out of the 160 studies retrieved. For patients with high-risk PE, tenecteplase increased 30-day survival rate (16% vs 6%; P = 0.005) and did not increase the incidence of bleeding (6% vs 5%; P = 0.73). For patients with intermediate-risk PE, four RCTs suggested that tenecteplase reduced right ventricular insufficiency at 24h early in the onset and the incidence of hemodynamic failure without affecting mortality in a short/long-term [<30 days RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.47, 1.46);≥30 days RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.88, 1.22)]. However, tenecteplase was associated with high bleeding risk [<30 days RR = 1.79, 95% CI (1.61, 2.00); ≥30 days RR = 1.28, 95% CI (0.62, 2.64)].
CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase may represent a promising candidate for patients with high risk PE. However, tenecteplase is not recommended for patients with intermediate-risk PE because of high bleeding risk. More large-scale studies focused on tenecteplase are still needed for PE patients.
METHODS: We completed the literature search on May 31, 2021 using PubMed, EMBASE and the Web of Science. Analyses were conducted according to PE risk stratification, study design and duration of follow-up. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) and its 95% confident intervals (CIs) for death and major bleeding were calculated using a random-effect model.
RESULTS: A total of six studies, with four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two cohort studies, were included in this study out of the 160 studies retrieved. For patients with high-risk PE, tenecteplase increased 30-day survival rate (16% vs 6%; P = 0.005) and did not increase the incidence of bleeding (6% vs 5%; P = 0.73). For patients with intermediate-risk PE, four RCTs suggested that tenecteplase reduced right ventricular insufficiency at 24h early in the onset and the incidence of hemodynamic failure without affecting mortality in a short/long-term [<30 days RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.47, 1.46);≥30 days RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.88, 1.22)]. However, tenecteplase was associated with high bleeding risk [<30 days RR = 1.79, 95% CI (1.61, 2.00); ≥30 days RR = 1.28, 95% CI (0.62, 2.64)].
CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase may represent a promising candidate for patients with high risk PE. However, tenecteplase is not recommended for patients with intermediate-risk PE because of high bleeding risk. More large-scale studies focused on tenecteplase are still needed for PE patients.