髋部骨折后血栓预防药物的有效性:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2023-11-07 eCollection Date: 2023-10-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00064
Ahmed M Negm, Lisa Yamaura, Ashley Clarke, Daniyya Chaudhry, Tanya Cherppukaran, Prism Schneider
{"title":"髋部骨折后血栓预防药物的有效性:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Ahmed M Negm, Lisa Yamaura, Ashley Clarke, Daniyya Chaudhry, Tanya Cherppukaran, Prism Schneider","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple studies have compared different pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis agents after hip fracture surgery, including aspirin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and warfarin, resulting in variability in clinical practice. To guide clinical management, a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which enables the simultaneous assessment of the effects of multiple interventions for the same patient population, was performed. This study aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in reducing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with surgically treated hip fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome was the effect of the treatment on the VTE rate, and the secondary outcome was the treatment effect on the bleeding rate. Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to February 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screening; data extraction; and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. All studies examining thromboprophylaxis interventions (DOAC, LMWH, UFH, aspirin, and warfarin) in patients with a surgically treated hip fracture were included. Bayesian NMA was performed, and dichotomous outcome data were pooled using the odds ratio. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 19 studies were included after the screening of 466 citations and 77 full-text articles. Of the included studies, 15 studies had a high overall risk of bias. The NMA of the VTE outcome included 19 studies, 49,409 participants, and 6 thromboprophylaxis interventions. The NMA of the bleeding outcome included 3 studies, 18,163 participants, and 3 interventions. The mean age ranged from 43.5 to 86.2 years among the included studies. No thromboprophylaxis intervention was statistically different from any other intervention in its effect on the VTE or bleeding rate in hip fracture patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This NMA demonstrated that there was no difference between the thromboprophylaxis interventions in reducing VTE or bleeding rates in hip fracture patients. More robust randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the most effective thromboprophylaxis interventions for patients with hip fractures.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"8 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624462/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Thromboprophylaxis Agents Following Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed M Negm, Lisa Yamaura, Ashley Clarke, Daniyya Chaudhry, Tanya Cherppukaran, Prism Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple studies have compared different pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis agents after hip fracture surgery, including aspirin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and warfarin, resulting in variability in clinical practice. To guide clinical management, a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which enables the simultaneous assessment of the effects of multiple interventions for the same patient population, was performed. This study aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in reducing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with surgically treated hip fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome was the effect of the treatment on the VTE rate, and the secondary outcome was the treatment effect on the bleeding rate. Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to February 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screening; data extraction; and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. All studies examining thromboprophylaxis interventions (DOAC, LMWH, UFH, aspirin, and warfarin) in patients with a surgically treated hip fracture were included. Bayesian NMA was performed, and dichotomous outcome data were pooled using the odds ratio. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 19 studies were included after the screening of 466 citations and 77 full-text articles. Of the included studies, 15 studies had a high overall risk of bias. The NMA of the VTE outcome included 19 studies, 49,409 participants, and 6 thromboprophylaxis interventions. The NMA of the bleeding outcome included 3 studies, 18,163 participants, and 3 interventions. The mean age ranged from 43.5 to 86.2 years among the included studies. No thromboprophylaxis intervention was statistically different from any other intervention in its effect on the VTE or bleeding rate in hip fracture patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This NMA demonstrated that there was no difference between the thromboprophylaxis interventions in reducing VTE or bleeding rates in hip fracture patients. More robust randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the most effective thromboprophylaxis interventions for patients with hip fractures.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624462/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBJS Open Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00064\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多项研究比较了髋部骨折手术后不同的药物血栓预防剂,包括阿司匹林、普通肝素(UFH)、低分子肝素(LMWH)、直接口服抗凝血剂(DOAC)和华法林,导致临床实践的可变性。为了指导临床管理,进行了一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析(NMA),该分析能够同时评估同一患者群体的多种干预措施的效果。本研究旨在确定在手术治疗的髋部骨折患者中,血栓预防在减少静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)方面的比较有效性。方法:主要观察治疗对VTE发生率的影响,次要观察治疗对出血率的影响。2000年1月至2022年2月,通过对Embase、MEDLINE和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册(Central)的系统检索,确定了相关研究。标题、摘要和全文筛选;数据提取;并进行偏倚风险评估。纳入了所有检查手术治疗髋部骨折患者血栓预防干预措施(DOAC、LMWH、UFH、阿司匹林和华法林)的研究。进行贝叶斯NMA,并使用比值比合并二分结果数据。使用累积排名曲线(SUCRA)下的表面对每个结果的干预措施进行排名。结果:筛选466篇引文和77篇全文文章后,共纳入19项研究。在纳入的研究中,有15项研究的总体偏倚风险较高。VTE结果的NMA包括19项研究、49409名参与者和6项血栓预防干预措施。出血结果的NMA包括3项研究、18163名参与者和3项干预措施。纳入研究的平均年龄在43.5至86.2岁之间。在对髋部骨折患者VTE或出血率的影响方面,没有任何血栓预防干预措施与任何其他干预措施有统计学差异。结论:NMA表明,在降低髋部骨折患者VTE或出血率方面,血栓预防干预措施之间没有差异。需要更强有力的随机对照试验来确定对髋部骨折患者最有效的血栓预防干预措施。证据级别:治疗级别II。有关证据级别的完整描述,请参阅《作者须知》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effectiveness of Thromboprophylaxis Agents Following Hip Fracture: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Multiple studies have compared different pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis agents after hip fracture surgery, including aspirin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and warfarin, resulting in variability in clinical practice. To guide clinical management, a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), which enables the simultaneous assessment of the effects of multiple interventions for the same patient population, was performed. This study aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in reducing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with surgically treated hip fractures.

Methods: The primary outcome was the effect of the treatment on the VTE rate, and the secondary outcome was the treatment effect on the bleeding rate. Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to February 2022. Title, abstract, and full-text screening; data extraction; and risk-of-bias assessment were performed. All studies examining thromboprophylaxis interventions (DOAC, LMWH, UFH, aspirin, and warfarin) in patients with a surgically treated hip fracture were included. Bayesian NMA was performed, and dichotomous outcome data were pooled using the odds ratio. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each outcome.

Results: A total of 19 studies were included after the screening of 466 citations and 77 full-text articles. Of the included studies, 15 studies had a high overall risk of bias. The NMA of the VTE outcome included 19 studies, 49,409 participants, and 6 thromboprophylaxis interventions. The NMA of the bleeding outcome included 3 studies, 18,163 participants, and 3 interventions. The mean age ranged from 43.5 to 86.2 years among the included studies. No thromboprophylaxis intervention was statistically different from any other intervention in its effect on the VTE or bleeding rate in hip fracture patients.

Conclusions: This NMA demonstrated that there was no difference between the thromboprophylaxis interventions in reducing VTE or bleeding rates in hip fracture patients. More robust randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the most effective thromboprophylaxis interventions for patients with hip fractures.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Both-Bone Forearm Shaft Fractures Treated with Compression Plate Fixation in Adults: A Systematic Review on Adverse Events and Outcomes. Exploring the Performance of ChatGPT in an Orthopaedic Setting and Its Potential Use as an Educational Tool. Nonoperative Care Versus Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Application of a Health Economic Technique to Simulate Head-to-Head Comparisons. Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum Versus Needle Fasciotomy for Primary Metacarpophalangeal Dupuytren Contracture: Five-Year Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Reoperation Rate After Posterior Spinal Fusion Varies Significantly by Lenke Type.
×
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