Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/10760296241256360
Xi Chen, Linjuan Guo, Meiming Lin
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.","authors":"Xi Chen, Linjuan Guo, Meiming Lin","doi":"10.1177/10760296241256360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current guidelines recommend the standard-of-care anticoagulation (vitamin K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin) in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with the current standard of care in patients with CVT. We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases up to December 2023 to identify clinical trials on the effect of DOACs in patients with CVT. A Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model was applied, and the effect measures were expressed as the absolute risk differences (RDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 4 RCTs involving 270 participants were included. In the pooled analysis, DOACs and standard of care had low incidence rates of recurrent VTE and all-cause death, and similar rates of any recanalization (78.2% vs 83.2%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-14% to 5%) and complete recanalization (60.9% vs 69.4%; RD = -7%, 95%CI:-24% to 10%). Compared with the standard of care, DOACs had non-significant reductions in the rates of major bleeding (1.2% vs 2.4%; RD = -1%, 95%CI: -6% to 3%), intracranial hemorrhage (1.9% vs 3.6%; RD = -2%, 95%CI:-7% to 3%), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (3.8% vs 7.4%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-9% to 2%), and any bleeding (17.3% vs 21.4%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-16% to 8%) in patients with CVT. DOACs and standard of care showed similar efficacy and safety profiles for the treatment of CVT. DOACs might be safe and a convenient alternative to vitamin K antagonists for thromboprophylaxis in patients with CVT.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11110516/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10760296241256360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend the standard-of-care anticoagulation (vitamin K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin) in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). Herein, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with the current standard of care in patients with CVT. We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases up to December 2023 to identify clinical trials on the effect of DOACs in patients with CVT. A Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model was applied, and the effect measures were expressed as the absolute risk differences (RDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 4 RCTs involving 270 participants were included. In the pooled analysis, DOACs and standard of care had low incidence rates of recurrent VTE and all-cause death, and similar rates of any recanalization (78.2% vs 83.2%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-14% to 5%) and complete recanalization (60.9% vs 69.4%; RD = -7%, 95%CI:-24% to 10%). Compared with the standard of care, DOACs had non-significant reductions in the rates of major bleeding (1.2% vs 2.4%; RD = -1%, 95%CI: -6% to 3%), intracranial hemorrhage (1.9% vs 3.6%; RD = -2%, 95%CI:-7% to 3%), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (3.8% vs 7.4%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-9% to 2%), and any bleeding (17.3% vs 21.4%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-16% to 8%) in patients with CVT. DOACs and standard of care showed similar efficacy and safety profiles for the treatment of CVT. DOACs might be safe and a convenient alternative to vitamin K antagonists for thromboprophylaxis in patients with CVT.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直接口服抗凝剂治疗脑静脉血栓的有效性和安全性:随机临床试验的 Meta 分析。
现行指南建议脑静脉血栓形成(CVT)患者接受标准抗凝治疗(维生素 K 拮抗剂或低分子量肝素)。在此,我们对随机临床试验(RCT)进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估直接口服抗凝药(DOAC)与目前 CVT 患者的标准治疗相比的有效性和安全性。我们系统检索了截至 2023 年 12 月的 PubMed 和 Embase 数据库,以确定有关 DOACs 对 CVT 患者疗效的临床试验。我们采用了曼特尔-海恩泽尔固定效应模型,并以绝对风险差异(RD)和95%置信区间(CI)来表示效应测量值。共纳入了 4 项 RCT,涉及 270 名参与者。在汇总分析中,DOACs和标准疗法的复发性VTE和全因死亡发生率较低,任何再通率(78.2% vs 83.2%;RD = -4%,95%CI:-14%至5%)和完全再通率(60.9% vs 69.4%;RD = -7%,95%CI:-24%至10%)相似。与标准治疗相比,DOACs 可非显著降低大出血率(1.2% vs 2.4%;RD = -1%, 95%CI:-6% to 3%)、颅内出血率(1.9% vs 3.6%;RD = -2%;95%CI:-6% to 3%)和完全再通率(60.9% vs 69.4%;RD = -7%;95%CI:-24% to 10%)。6%; RD = -2%, 95%CI:-7% to 3%)、临床相关的非大出血(3.8% vs 7.4%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-9% to 2%)和任何出血(17.3% vs 21.4%; RD = -4%, 95%CI:-16% to 8% )。DOAC和标准疗法在治疗CVT方面显示出相似的疗效和安全性。在CVT患者的血栓预防治疗中,DOACs可能是维生素K拮抗剂的一种安全、方便的替代药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1