Safety and Efficacy of Anticoagulation in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and aims
Portal vein thrombosis is a serious adverse event that occurs during liver cirrhosis. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapy and prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in cirrhosis patients with (/without) portal vein thrombosis.Methods
Eligible comparative studies were identified by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals using fixed-effects models. Recanalization and thrombus progression were defined as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and death mortality.Results
A total of 3479 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with the control group, the recanalization rate in the anticoagulant therapy group was increased (P < 0.00001) in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis without increasing adverse events. Multiple use of enoxaparin in small doses is safer than single large doses (P=0.004). Direct oral anticoagulants are more effective (P < 0.00001) and safer than traditional anticoagulants. Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy can effectively prevent portal vein thrombosis formation (P < 0.00001).Conclusions
Anticoagulation therapy can treat or prevent portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis and is a relatively safe treatment.
SUBMITTER: Chen H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8102101 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: The benefits and risks of starting anticoagulation therapy, such as direct oral anticoagulations (DOACs) or warfarin, in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of starting oral anticoagulation (OAC) and non-oral anticoagulation in these patients. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to 01 May 2022 for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation patients with intracranial hemorrhage. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to evaluate bias risks for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. An effects model was applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Results: We analyzed data from two randomized controlled trials (304 patients) and seven Cohort studies (17,477 patients). Compared to non-oral anticoagulation, starting oral anticoagulation therapy reduced the risk of Ischemic Stroke/Systemic Embolism (SE) (aHR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55-0.57) and all-cause death (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35-0.80) in atrial fibrillation patients and a prior history intracranial hemorrhage. Starting oral anticoagulation therapy did not increase the risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.66-1.74), but increased the risk of major bleeding (aHR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.00-1.91) than no oral anticoagulation therapy. The DOACs had a lower risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE (aHR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.70-1.00), recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82), and all-cause death (aHR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88) compared to warfarin. According to subgroup analyses, starting oral anticoagulation therapy have a higher risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage than non-oral anticoagulation therapy (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.36-1.81) for Asians. Conclusion: After intracranial hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation patients, restarting or initiating oral anticoagulation therapy decreased the risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE and all-cause death but did not increase the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage. Direct oral anticoagulations have better efficacy and safety than warfarin if oral anticoagulation therapy is started. However, starting oral anticoagulation increases the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage in the Asian region.
| S-EPMC10033967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The study objective was to determine if peri-operative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation is beneficial or harmful.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Setting: Inpatient or in-hospital setting.Participants: Adults with atrial fibrillation having a CHADS2 score >1 undergoing elective surgical procedure on anticoagulation.Methods: A systemic search of multiple databases (Cochrane, Medline, PubMed) was performed regarding studies conducted on efficacy and safety of perioperative bridging anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Studies identified were reviewed by two authors individually before inclusion. The results were then pooled using Review Manager to determine the combined effect. Stroke/systemic embolism was considered as the primary efficacy outcome. Major bleeding was the primary safety outcome.Results: The systematic search revealed 108 potential articles. The full texts of 28 articles were retrieved for assessment of eligibility. After full text review, 25 articles were excluded. Three articles met inclusion criteria. No significant difference in stroke/systemic embolism with bridging anticoagulation was noted (risk ratio, 1.25-95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-2.85). Bridging was associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding (risk ratio, 3.29-95% CI, 2.25-4.81).Conclusion: An individualized approach is required when initiating peri-operative bridging anticoagulation. There is certainly a higher risk of bleeding with bridging anticoagulation and no difference in stroke/systemic embolism. However, the results cannot be extrapolated to patients who have valvular atrial fibrillation or CHADS2 score of 5 or greater.
| S-EPMC7987095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in preventing stroke and thromboembolic events in people with thyrotoxic atrial fibrillation is scarce.ObjectiveWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in people with thyrotoxic atrial fibrillation.MethodsOur study protocol was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration no. CRD42020222782). Four databases and two systematic review registers were searched through 25 November 2020 for interventional and observational studies comparing anticoagulation therapy with active comparators, placebo, or no treatment in people with thyrotoxic atrial fibrillation. Random-effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed. Quality of evidence was described using the GRADE framework.ResultsIn the study, 23,145 records were retrieved. One randomized controlled trial and eight cohort studies were ultimately included. Effect estimates on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation were extracted. Meta-analysis using the inverse variance and random-effects methods was conducted on four cohort studies with 3443 participants and 277 events. Anticoagulation in people with thyrotoxic atrial fibrillation reduced the risk of ischemic stroke and systemic thromboembolism by 3% (95% CI: 1-6%). Warfarin may prevent ischemic stroke in people with thyrotoxic atrial fibrillation if the CHA2DS2-VASc score exceeds 1 and when atrial fibrillation persists beyond 7 days. Direct oral anticoagulants may be associated with fewer bleeding events than warfarin.ConclusionsAnticoagulation prevents ischemic stroke and systemic thromboembolism in people with thyrotoxic atrial fibrillation. Direct oral anticoagulants may be associated with fewer bleeding events.
| S-EPMC9175610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet or anticoagulation drugs in chronic coronary syndromes patients.MethodsElectronic databases (Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases) were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating different antiplatelet or anticoagulation drugs (aspirin, aspirin + clopidogrel, aspirin + clopidogrel + cilostazol, clopidogrel/prasugrel + aspirin, aspirin + rivaoxaban 2.5 mg, aspirin + ticagrelor 60 mg, aspirin + ticagrelor 90 mg, clopidogrel or rivroxaban 5 mg) versus placebo for treatment chronic coronary syndromes patients. Outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events, all cause death, major bleeding and myocardial infarction. A random-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals. The NMA was performed using R Software with a GeMTC package. A Bayesian NMA was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials met criteria for inclusion and finally included in this NMA. In head-to-head comparison, no significant difference was observed between all antithrombotic treatment strategies with respect to primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events. In head-to-head comparison, no significant difference was observed between all antithrombotic treatment strategies with respect to all cause death. Clopidogrel/prasugrel + aspirin (OR = 3.8, 95% credible intervals [CrI]: 1.3-12.0, P < .05) and aspirin + rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (OR = 3.1, 95%CrI: 1.1-9.5, P < .05) was associated with an increase of the major bleeding. Compared with aspirin alone, aspirin + clopidogrel (OR = 0.42, 95%CrI: 0.22-0.76, P < .05) and aspirin + ticagrelor 90 mg (OR = 0.42, 95%CrI: 0.17-0.95, P < .05) was associated with a decrease of the myocardial infarction.ConclusionsMyocardial infarction was significantly lower when adding clopidogrel or ticagrelor 90 mg to aspirin than those in the aspirin alone group. However, clopidogrel/prasugrel and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg was associated with an increase of the major bleeding than aspirin alone.
| S-EPMC10695535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit.MethodsWe searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard prophylactic dose anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality at end of follow-up or discharge. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events, and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation.ResultsEleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in mortality for up to 45 days compared with prophylactic anticoagulation: 17.5% (501/2861) died in the intensified anticoagulation group and 18.8% (513/2734) died in the prophylactic anticoagulation group, relative risk (RR) 0.93; 95%CI, 0.79 - 1.10. On subgroup analysis, there was a possible signal of mortality reduction for inpatients admitted to general wards, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49 - 1.44; I 2 = 75%) and not significantly different to studies performed in the ICU (interaction P = 0.51). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced with intensified anticoagulation compared with prophylaxis (8 studies; RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41 - 0.69; I 2 = 0%). This effect was driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing on subgroup analysis (interaction P =0.04). Major bleeding was increased with use of intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting.ConclusionIntensified anticoagulation has no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased risk of bleeding. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU hospitalised patients requires exploration in additional RCTs.SummaryIn this aggregate data meta-analysis, use of intensified anticoagulation had no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and was associated with increased risk of bleeding.
| S-EPMC8923119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Objectives Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results Eleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified versus prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (relative risk (RR) 0.93; 95%CI 0.79–1.10). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non-ICU patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.49 - 1.44; I2 = 75%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced (RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41–0.69; I2 = 0%), with effect driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing (interaction P = 0.04). Major bleeding was increased with intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.17–2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. Conclusion Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs.
| S-EPMC9214161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.15-2.74). Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.
| S-EPMC8745419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the "gemtc-0.8.4" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.
| S-EPMC8446274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) is a widely used strategy for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Most of the current guidelines recommend liver failure as one of the contraindications for citrate anticoagulation. However, some studies suggested that the use of citrate for CRRT in liver failure patients did not increase the risk of citrate-related complications. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the current evidences on the safety and efficacy of RCA for CRRT in liver failure patients. METHODS:We performed a comprehensive search on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from the inception to March 1, 2018. Studies enrolled adult (age?>?18?years) patients with various levels of liver dysfunction underwent RCA-CRRT were included in this systematic review. RESULTS:After the study screening, 10 observational studies with 1241 liver dysfunction patients were included in this systematic review. The pooled rate of citrate accumulation and bleeding was 12% [3%, 22%] and 5% [2%, 8%], respectively. Compared with the baseline data, the serum pH, bicarbonate, and base excess (BE), the rate of metabolic alkalosis, the serum ionized calcium (ionCa) and total calcium (totCa) level, and the ratio of total calcium/ionized calcium (totCa/ionCa) significantly increased at the end of observation. However, no significant increase was observed in serum citrate (MD -?65.82 [-?194.19, 62.55]), lactate (MD 0.49 [-?0.27, 1.26]) and total bilirubin concentration (MD 0.79 [-?0.70, 2.29]) at the end of CRRT. Compared with non-liver failure patients, the live failure patients showed no significant difference in the pH (MD -?0.04 [-?0.13, 0.05]), serum lactate level (MD 0.69 [-?0.26, 1.64]), and totCa/ionCa ratio (MD 0.03 [-?0.12, 0.18]) during CRRT. The median of mean filter lifespan was 55.9?h, with a range from 22.7 to 72?h. CONCLUSIONS:Regional citrate anticoagulation seems to be a safe anticoagulation method in liver failure patients underwent CRRT and could yield a favorable filter lifespan. Closely monitoring the acid base status and electrolyte balance may be more necessary during RCA-CRRT in patients with liver failure.
| S-EPMC6345001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimAlthough the efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cell therapy for liver cirrhosis have been demonstrated in several studies. Clinical cases of mesenchymal stem cell therapy for patients with liver cirrhosis are limited and these studies lack the consistency of treatment effects. This article aimed to systematically investigate the efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of liver cirrhosis.MethodThe data source included PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, from inception to May 2023. Literature was screened by the PICOS principle, followed by literature quality evaluation to assess the risk of bias. Finally, the data from each study's outcome indicators were extracted for a combined analysis. Outcome indicators of the assessment included liver functions and adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.ResultsA total of 11 clinical trials met the selection criteria. The pooled analysis' findings demonstrated that both primary and secondary indicators had improved. Compared to the control group, infusion of mesenchymal stem cells significantly increased ALB levels in 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months, and significantly decreased MELD score in 1 month, 2 months, and 6 months, according to a subgroup analysis using a random-effects model. Additionally, the hepatic arterial injection favored improvements in MELD score and ALB levels. Importantly, none of the included studies indicated any severe adverse effects.ConclusionThe results showed that mesenchymal stem cell was effective and safe in the treatment of liver cirrhosis, improving liver function (such as a decrease in MELD score and an increase in ALB levels) in patients with liver cirrhosis and exerting protective effects on complications of liver cirrhosis and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Although the results of the subgroup analysis were informative for the selection of mesenchymal stem cells for clinical treatment, a large number of high-quality randomized controlled trials validations are still needed.
| S-EPMC10590028 | biostudies-literature