MedElevator
Войти в исследования Indian heart journal · 2001
A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials comparing low-molecular weight heparins with unfractionated heparin in unstable angina.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Malhotra S, Karan R S, Bhargava V K, Pandhi P, Grover A, Sharma Y P, Kumar R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin has been used extensively for the treatment of unstable angina/non-Q wave myocardial infarction but it has several disadvantages. Low-molecular weight heparins are now recommended although they are 3-5 times costlier than unfractionated heparin since they are convinient to administer and do not require activated thromboplastin time monitoring. Whereas enoxaparin, a low-molecular weight heparin, has been demonstrated to be superior to unfractionated heparin, the results of other low-molecular weight heparins have not been so convincing.
METHOD AND RESULTS: Through manual, MEDLINE and EMBASE search, we identified five randomized trials (excluding enoxaparin trials) that compared low-molecular weight heparins with unfractionated heparin in unstable angina. The prespecified efficacy end point of interest included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, recurrent angina and urgent revascularization. The safety end point was taken as a composite of major hemorrhage, minor hemorrhage, thrombocytopenia, allergic reaction and any other adverse event. We calculated odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for each trial for the composite end point, and the pooled odds ratio (95%) confidence interval) was calculated using two established methods of meta-analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel-Peto method and the DerSirmonian-Laird method. Both the methods yielded similar odds ratio (95% confidence interval). Separate odds ratio were calculated for efficacy and safety end points. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of the composite efficacy end point: the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.83 (0.70-0.99: p=0.08). The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for the safety data was 0.78 (0.69-1.26: p=0.33).
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was observed when the efficacy and safety of low-molecular weight heparins were compared with those of unfractionated heparin. A cost-effectiveness analysis of low-molecular weight heparins versus unfractionated heparin must be done urgently to establish more firmly the place of low-molecular weight heparins in the management of unstable angina.
METHOD AND RESULTS: Through manual, MEDLINE and EMBASE search, we identified five randomized trials (excluding enoxaparin trials) that compared low-molecular weight heparins with unfractionated heparin in unstable angina. The prespecified efficacy end point of interest included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, recurrent angina and urgent revascularization. The safety end point was taken as a composite of major hemorrhage, minor hemorrhage, thrombocytopenia, allergic reaction and any other adverse event. We calculated odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for each trial for the composite end point, and the pooled odds ratio (95%) confidence interval) was calculated using two established methods of meta-analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel-Peto method and the DerSirmonian-Laird method. Both the methods yielded similar odds ratio (95% confidence interval). Separate odds ratio were calculated for efficacy and safety end points. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of the composite efficacy end point: the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.83 (0.70-0.99: p=0.08). The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for the safety data was 0.78 (0.69-1.26: p=0.33).
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was observed when the efficacy and safety of low-molecular weight heparins were compared with those of unfractionated heparin. A cost-effectiveness analysis of low-molecular weight heparins versus unfractionated heparin must be done urgently to establish more firmly the place of low-molecular weight heparins in the management of unstable angina.