Extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients with cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Osataphan S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8095131 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Thrombosis is a common complication in patients with cancer. Whether thromboprophylaxis could benefit patients with cancer is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing surgery or chemotherapy. Methods:We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science for studies published before May 2018 to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis measures were more effective than a placebo in patients with cancer. Results:In total, 33 trials with 11,942 patients with cancer were identified. In patients with cancer undergoing surgery, the administration of thromboprophylaxis was associated with decreasing trends in venous thromboembolism (VTE) [relative risk (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.81] and DVT (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.87). In patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, the administration of thromboprophylaxis reduced the incidences of VTE, DVT, and pulmonary embolism compared with no thromboprophylaxis (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.73; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81, respectively). The pooled results regarding major bleeding showed no significant difference between prophylaxis and no prophylaxis in either the surgical or the chemotherapy groups (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.74-7.52, p?=?0.1482, I2?=?0%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93-1.83, p?=?0.1274, I2?=?0%, respectively). Conclusion:Thromboprophylaxis did not increase major bleeding events or the incidence of thrombocytopenia. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who received thromboprophylaxis and those who did not. This meta-analysis provides evidence that thromboprophylaxis can reduce the number of VTE and DVT events, with no apparent increase in the incidence of major bleeding in patients with cancer.
| S-EPMC7081475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism is widely used in critically ill patients. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy and safety of the various thromboprophylaxis techniques, especially mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Therefore, we performed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the overall incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for between unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) in critically ill patients. A Bayesian random effects model for multiple treatment comparisons was constructed. The primary outcome measure was the overall incidence of DVT at the longest follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of major bleeding, as defined by the original trials. Our analysis included 8,622 patients from 12 RCTs. The incidence of DVT was significantly lower in patients treated with UFH (OR, 0.45; 95% CrI, 0.22-0.83) or LMWH (OR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.18-0.72) than in patients in the control group. IPC was associated with a reduced incidence of DVT compared to the control group, but the effect was not statistically significant (OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.20-1.23). The risk of DVT was similar for patients treated with UFH and LMWH (OR, 1.16; 95% CrI, 0.68-2.11). The risk of major bleeding was similar between the treatment groups in medical critically ill patients and also in critically ill patients with a high risk of bleeding. In critically ill patients, the efficacy of mechanical thromboprophylaxis in reducing the risk of DVT is not as robust as those of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.
| S-EPMC5056218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough older patients are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), thromboprophylaxis is underused because of bleeding concerns. The MARINER trial evaluated whether rivaroxaban reduced symptomatic postdischarge VTE in acutely ill medical patients.ObjectivesWe hypothesized that rivaroxaban would have a favorable benefit/risk profile in patients ≥75 years of age.MethodsPatients were randomized in a double-blind manner at hospital discharge to rivaroxaban (10 mg/day for creatinine clearance ≥50 ml/min; 7.5 mg/day for ≥30-<50 ml/min) or placebo for 45 days. Using a Cox proportional hazard model including treatment as a covariate, we compared the risk of the primary efficacy outcome (symptomatic VTE plus VTE-related death in the intention-to-treat population) and safety outcome (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding in the safety population) in the prespecified subgroups of patients ≥ and <75 years of age.ResultsThe primary event rate in patients ≥75 years of age was 2-fold higher than that in those <75 years. The incidence of the primary efficacy outcomes in both age groups was numerically lower with rivaroxaban than with placebo (≥75: 1.2% and 1.6%, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43-1.22; <75 0.6% and 0.8%, HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46-1.32; interaction p-value for age group = .85). The incidence of major bleeding was low and similar in the two age and treatment groups (interaction p value for age group = .35).ConclusionSymptomatic VTE and VTE-related death occur frequently in older patients with acute medical illness. The benefit/risk profile of rivaroxaban in patients ≥75 years of age appears consistent with that observed in the general population.
| S-EPMC9292378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Guidelines suggest thromboprophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) according to Khorana score. Data on thromboprophylaxis efficacy in different Khorana score risk groups remain ambiguous. We sought to evaluate thromboprophylaxis in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk (≥2 points) Khorana score and an intermediate-risk score (2 points) or high-risk score (≥3 points) separately. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing thromboprophylaxis with placebo or standard care in ambulatory cancer patients. Outcomes were VTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated in a profile-likelihood random-effects model. Six RCTs were identified, involving 4626 cancer patients. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) significantly reduced VTE risk in intermediate- to high-risk (RR, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.67), intermediate-risk (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.83), and high-risk patients (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67); the numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were 25 (intermediate to high risk), 34 (intermediate risk), and 17 (high risk), respectively. There was no significant difference in major bleeding (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.69-1.67) or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-1.01). The numbers needed to harm (NNHs) for major bleeding in intermediate- to high-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients were 1000, -500, and 334, respectively. The overall NNH was lower in DOAC studies (100) versus LMWH studies (-500). These findings indicate thromboprophylaxis effectively reduces the risk of VTE in patients with an intermediate- to high-risk Khorana score, although the NNT is twice as high for intermediate-risk patients compared with high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC7594395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to determine whether using pharmacodynamic-based dosing of antimicrobials, such as extended/continuous infusions, in critically ill patients is associated with improved outcomes as compared with traditional dosing methods.MethodsWe searched Medline, HealthStar, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry, and CINAHL from inception to September 2013 without language restrictions for studies comparing the use of extended/continuous infusions with traditional dosing. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data on methodology and outcomes, and performed quality assessment. Meta-analyses were performed by using random-effects models.ResultsOf 1,319 citations, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n?=?782 patients) and 13 cohort studies (n?=?2,117 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with traditional non-pharmacodynamic-based dosing, RCTs of continuous/extended infusions significantly reduced clinical failure rates (relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.94, P?=?0.02) and intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference, -1.5; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.2 days, P?=?0.02), but not mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.19; P?=?0.38). No significant between-trial heterogeneity was found for these analyses (I2?=?0). Reduced mortality rates almost achieved statistical significance when the results of all included studies (RCTs and cohort studies) were pooled (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.00; P?=?0.054).ConclusionsPooled results from small RCTs suggest reduced clinical failure rates and intensive care unit length-of-stay when using continuous/extended infusions of antibiotics in critically ill patients. Reduced mortality rates almost achieved statistical significance when the results of RCTs were combined with cohort studies. These results support the conduct of adequately powered RCTs to define better the utility of continuous/extended infusions in the era of antibiotic resistance.
| S-EPMC4056781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) carry the highest risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) amongst all cancer patients. Appropriate use of primary thromboprophylaxis might significantly and safely reduce its burden. We performed a systematic review of published studies and meeting abstracts using MEDLINE and EMBASE through July 2020 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to estimate the pooled event-based risk ratio (RR) and the pooled absolute risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Five randomized controlled studies with 1003 PC patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to placebo, thromboprophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of VTE (pooled RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.19-0.51, p < 0.00001, I2 = 8%; absolute RD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12--0.05, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), with an estimated number needed to treat of 11.9 patients to prevent one VTE event. Similar reductions of VTE were observed in studies with parenteral (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.53) versus oral anticoagulants (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.99) and in studies using prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70) versus supra-prophylactic doses of anticoagulants (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.90). The pooled RR for major bleeding was 1.08 (95% CI 0.47-2.52, p = 0.85, I2 = 0%) and the absolute RD was 0.00 (95% CI -0.02-0.03, p = 0.85, I2 = 0%). Evidence supports a net clinical benefit of thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory PC patients receiving chemotherapy. Adequately powered randomized phase III studies assessing the most effective anticoagulant and the optimal dose, schedule and duration of thromboprophylaxis to be used are warranted.
| S-EPMC7464699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An optimal therapy for the treatment of pneumonia caused by drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii remains unclear. This study aims to compare various antimicrobial strategies and to determine the most effective therapy for pneumonia using a network meta-analysis.Systematic search and quality assessment were performed to select eligible studies reporting one of the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiological eradication. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A network meta-analysis was conducted with a Bayesian approach. Antimicrobial treatments were ranked based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value along with estimated median outcome rate and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Two treatments were considered significantly different if a posterior probability of superiority (P) was greater than 97.5%.Twenty-three studies evaluating 15 antimicrobial treatments were included. Intravenous colistin monotherapy (IV COL) was selected as a common comparator, serving as a bridge for developing the network. Five treatments ranked higher than IV COL (SUCRA, 57.1%; median all-cause mortality 0.45, 95% CrI 0.41-0.48) for reducing all-cause mortality: sulbactam monotherapy (SUL, 100.0%; 0.18, 0.04-0.42), high-dose SUL (HD SUL, 85.7%; 0.31, 0.07-0.71), fosfomycin plus IV COL (FOS?+?IV COL, 78.6%; 0.34, 0.19-0.54), inhaled COL plus IV COL (IH COL?+?IV COL, 71.4%; 0.39, 0.32-0.46), and high-dose tigecycline (HD TIG, 71.4%; 0.39, 0.16-0.67). Those five treatments also ranked higher than IV COL (SUCRA, 45.5%) for improving clinical cure (72.7%, 72.7%, 63.6%, 81.8%, and 90.9%, respectively). Among the five treatments, SUL (P?=?98.1%) and IH COL?+?IV COL (P?=?99.9%) were significantly superior to IV COL for patient survival and clinical cure, respectively. In terms of microbiological eradication, FOS?+?IV COL (P?=?99.8%) and SUL (P?=?98.9%) were significantly superior to IV COL.This Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrated the comparative effectiveness of fifteen antimicrobial treatments for drug-resistant A. baumannii pneumonia in critically ill patients. For survival benefit, SUL appears to be the best treatment followed by HD SUL, FOS?+?IV COL, IH COL?+?IV COL, HD TIG, and IV COL therapy, in numerical order.
| S-EPMC5738897 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Preliminary evidence indicates that prophylactic-dose thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate to control the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the D-dimer measurement is useful for VTE risk stratification among COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to offer benchmark data on the incidence of VTE and to examine the difference in D-dimer levels among anticoagulated COVID-19 patients with and without VTE incident. METHODS:A comprehensive literature review of PubMed from inception to May 2020 was performed for original studies that reported the frequency of VTE and death among COVID-19 patients who received thromboprophylaxis on hospitalization. The endpoints included VTE (a composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT)), PE, DVT, and mortality. RESULTS:A total of 11 cohort studies were included. Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 23.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 16.2% to 33.7%; I2 = 93%) developed VTE despite anticoagulation. PE and DVT were detected in 11.6% (95% CI, 7.5% to 17.5%; I2 = 92%) and 11.9% (95% CI, 6.3% to 21.3%; I2 = 93%) of patients, respectively. Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) had a higher risk for VTE (30.4% )95% CI, 19.6% to 43.9%)) than those in the ward (13.0% (95% CI, 5.9% to 26.3%)). The mortality was estimated at 21.3% (95% CI, 17.0% to 26.4%; I2 = 53%). COVID-19 patients who developed VTE had higher D-dimer levels than those who did not develop VTE (mean difference, 2.05 µg/mL; 95% CI, 0.30 to 3.80 µg/mL; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:The heightened and heterogeneous risk of VTE in COVID-19 despite prophylactic anticoagulation calls into research on the pathogenesis of thromboembolic complications and strategy of thromboprophylaxis and risk stratification. Prominent elevation of D-dimer may be associated with VTE development and can be used to identify high-risk subsets.
| S-EPMC7463975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection have been shown to have abnormal coagulation parameters and are at increased risk of thromboembolism. The optimal thromboprophylaxis regimen that minimizes thrombosis without increased risk of serious bleeding is uncertain. Objectives To describe the efficacy and safety of increased intensity (enhanced) thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU). Methods This is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to the MICU of an urban safety net hospital. With the exception of patients being supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or on chronic anticoagulation who received therapeutic dosing of anticoagulation, thromboprophylaxis was given as either enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in doses higher than those recommended for standard prophylaxis, but lower than those used for therapeutic anticoagulation. Main results Of the 120 patients managed with an enhanced thromboprophylaxis protocol, 6 (5%) experienced thromboembolism as a result of their COVID-19 disease (1 pulmonary embolus, 4 deep vein thromboses, and 1 arterial embolism). Four patients experienced major bleeding while receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. Conclusions In critically ill patients with COVID-19, increased intensity (enhanced) thromboprophylaxis appears to be effective at preventing clinically significant thromboembolic events without an increased risk of serious bleeding.
| S-EPMC8019488 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.Eligibility criteria for selection studiesReports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.ResultsDelirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.ConclusionsNearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.
| S-EPMC4454920 | biostudies-literature