MedElevator
Войти в исследования PloS one · 2020
Venous thromboembolism prevention in intracerebral hemorrhage: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание 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.
Yogendrakumar Vignan, Lun Ronda, Khan Faizan, Salottolo Kristin, Lacut Karine, Graham Catriona, Dennis Martin, Hutton Brian, Wells Philip S, Fergusson Dean, Dowlatshahi Dar
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To summarize and compare the effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to pneumatic compression devices (PCD) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage.
METHODS: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched to identify randomized and non-randomized studies that compared each intervention directly to each other or against a common control (hydration, anti-platelet agents, stockings) in adults with acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Two investigators independently screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Studies with a high risk of bias were excluded from our final analysis. The primary outcome was the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) in the first 30 days.
RESULTS: 8,739 articles were screened; four articles, all randomized control trials, met eligibility criteria. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk estimates using both fixed and random effects analyses. 607 patients were included in the network analysis. PCD were associated with a significant decrease in venous thromboembolism compared to control (OR: 0.43, 95% Credible Limits [CrI]: 0.23-0.80). We did not find evidence of statistically significant differences between pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and control (OR: 0.93, 95% CrI: 0.19-4.37) or between PCD and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (OR: 0.47, 95% CrI: 0.09-2.54).
CONCLUSION: PCDs are superior to control interventions, but meaningful comparisons with pharmacotherapy are not possible due to a lack of data. This requires further exploration via large pragmatic clinical trials.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018090960.
METHODS: MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched to identify randomized and non-randomized studies that compared each intervention directly to each other or against a common control (hydration, anti-platelet agents, stockings) in adults with acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Two investigators independently screened the studies, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Studies with a high risk of bias were excluded from our final analysis. The primary outcome was the occurrence of venous thromboembolism (proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) in the first 30 days.
RESULTS: 8,739 articles were screened; four articles, all randomized control trials, met eligibility criteria. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk estimates using both fixed and random effects analyses. 607 patients were included in the network analysis. PCD were associated with a significant decrease in venous thromboembolism compared to control (OR: 0.43, 95% Credible Limits [CrI]: 0.23-0.80). We did not find evidence of statistically significant differences between pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and control (OR: 0.93, 95% CrI: 0.19-4.37) or between PCD and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (OR: 0.47, 95% CrI: 0.09-2.54).
CONCLUSION: PCDs are superior to control interventions, but meaningful comparisons with pharmacotherapy are not possible due to a lack of data. This requires further exploration via large pragmatic clinical trials.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018090960.