Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis in the Elderly: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT: Background: Given their changing pathophysiology, elderly patients carry a high risk of embolism and bleeding events; hence, use of appropriate anticoagulants is very important. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is one of the most widely used anticoagulants although LMWHs differ in their anti-Xa, antithrombin, and anticoagulant activities. To date, no study has directly compared the safety and efficacy of different LMWHs in the elderly. We aimed to compare such differences by conducting a network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LMWHs that included patients ≥60 years old up to July 22, 2020. Safety outcomes included venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death, deep thrombus embolism, and pulmonary embolism. Safety outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding, major bleeding, minor bleeding, and all-cause death. We calculated relative ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. The cumulative ranking probabilities (SUCRA) were conducted to rank the comparative effects and safety of all LMWHs. Results: We included 27 RCTs (30,441 elderly), comprising five LMWHs. LMWH was more effective than placebo in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.53) but less effective than a novel oral anticoagulant (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.33-1.91) and safer than acenocoumarol regarding risk of clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.90). However, indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of the five LMWHs showed no significant difference in our network analysis, and the subgroup analyses (such as in patients with deep venous thrombosis, cardiac disease, or age >65 years old) supported the results. The SUCRA showed that tinzaparin performed best in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (SUCRA 68.8%, cumulative probability 42.3%) and all-cause death (SUCRA 84.2%, cumulative probability 40.7%), whereas nadroparin was predominant in decreasing the risk of clinically relevant bleeding (SUCRA 84.8%, cumulative probability 77.0%). Conclusions: On present evidence, there are no significant differences in the efficacy and safety of different LMWHs for the elderly. According to the rank probability analysis, nadroparin seems to be safer for the elderly with a high risk of bleeding, whereas tinzaparin is more effective for those with low bleeding risk.

SUBMITTER: Yang HQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8703065 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.Review methodsRandomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.Results68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).ConclusionsDirect oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018106181.

Project description:BackgroundLow molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been extensively studied and became the treatment of choice for several indications including pulmonary embolism. While their efficacy in hemodialysis is considered similar to unfractionated heparin (UFH), their safety remains controversial mainly due to a risk of bioaccumulation in patients with renal impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of LMWH when compared to UFH for extracorporeal circuit (ECC) anticoagulation.MethodsWe used Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Trip database and NICE to retrieve relevant studies with no language restriction. We looked for controlled experimental trials comparing LMWH to UFH for ECC anticoagulation among end-stage renal disease patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Studies were kept if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: bleeding, lipid profile, cardiovascular events, osteoporosis or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Two independent reviewers conducted studies selection, quality assessment and data extraction with discrepancies solved by a third reviewer. Relative risk and 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean weighted difference (MWD) with 95% CI was used to pool continuous variables.ResultsSeventeen studies were selected as part of the systematic. The relative risk for total bleeding was 0.76 (95% CI 0.26-2.22). The WMD calculated for total cholesterol was -28.70 mg/dl (95% CI -51.43 to -5.98), a WMD for triglycerides of -55.57 mg/dl (95% CI -94.49 to -16.66) was estimated, and finally LDL-cholesterol had a WMD of -14.88 mg/dl (95% CI -36.27 to 6.51).ConclusionsLMWH showed to be at least as safe as UFH for ECC anticoagulation in chronic hemodialysis. The limited number of studies reporting on osteoporosis and HIT does not allow any conclusion for these outcomes. Larger studies are needed to evaluate properly the safety of LMWH in chronic hemodialysis.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of extended duration perioperative thromboprophylaxis by low molecular weight heparin when assessing disease-free survival in patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer.DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.Settings12 hospitals in Quebec and Ontario, Canada, between 25 October 2011 and 31 December 2020.Participants614 adults (age ≥18 years) were eligible with pathologically confirmed invasive adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum, no evidence of metastatic disease, a haemoglobin concentration of ≥8 g/dL, and were scheduled to undergo surgical resection.InterventionsRandom assignment to extended duration thromboprophylaxis using daily subcutaneous tinzaparin at 4500 IU, beginning at decision to operate and continuing for 56 days postoperatively, compared with in-patient postoperative thromboprophylaxis only.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was disease-free survival at three years, defined as survival without locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, second primary (same cancer), second primary (other cancer), or death. Secondary outcomes included venous thromboembolism, postoperative major bleeding complications, and five year overall survival. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.ResultsThe trial stopped recruitment prematurely after the interim analysis for futility. The primary outcome occurred in 235 (77%) of 307 patients in the extended duration group and in 243 (79%) of 307 patients in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.33; P=0.4). Postoperative venous thromboembolism occurred in five patients (2%) in the extended duration group and in four patients (1%) in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (P=0.8). Major surgery related bleeding in the first postoperative week was reported in one person (<1%) in the extended duration and in six people (2%) in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (P=0.1). No difference was noted for overall survival at five years in 272 (89%) patients in the extended duration group and 280 (91%) patients in the in-hospital thromboprophylaxis group (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.76; P=0.1).ConclusionsExtended duration to perioperative anticoagulation with tinzaparin did not improve disease-free survival or overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing surgical resection compared with in-patient postoperative thromboprophylaxis alone. The incidences of venous thromboembolism and postoperative major bleeding were low and similar between groups.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01455831.

Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) remained common complication following surgical resection of esophageal cancer. In this prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (NCT01267305), we aim to compare the safety and efficacy between low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) once-daily (QD) and twice-daily (BID) for the prophylaxis of VTE following esophagectomy.MethodsDuring August 2012 to July 2013, patients underwent esophagectomy were randomly assigned to nadroparin calcium QD (4,100 AxaIU qd + placebo qd, group QD), or nadroparin calcium BID (4,100 AxaIU q12h, group BID) in the prophylaxis of VTE. All patients received thrombelastography (TEG) before and 0/24/48/72 hours after operation. Daily vascular ultrasound of lower extremities was followed during the first 7 postoperative days to confirm the suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Cumulatively postoperative chest drainage at 72 hours after the surgery was collected to identify the difference in volume and red blood cell (RBC) counts between the two groups. Any bleeding events and thromboembolic events were also documented.ResultsA total of 117 patients were enrolled in this study, and 111 eligible patients were randomly assigned (group QD: 55 patients; group BID: 56 patients). Patients' clinical features were close between the two groups. TEG analysis [R time, K time, alpha angel and maximum amplitude (MA)] before and instantly after operation showed nearly identical results. However, compared with group QD, all TEG measurements of 24/48/72 hours postoperatively showed significantly prolonged R time and K time, and decreased alpha angel in group BID. In ultrasound follow-ups, a total of four cases of DVT (four cases in group QD and no case in group BID) were found in this cohort (7.27% versus 0%, P=0.046), and one case of pulmonary embolism (PE) (in group QD) was observed. The incidence of VTE was lower in group BID (9.09% versus 0%, P=0.032). At 72 hours after surgery, the cumulative volume of chest drainage were close between these two groups (1,001.39±424.58 versus 1,133.61±513.93 mL, P=0.406). RBC counts in chest drainage were also identical between two groups [(2.56±1.98)×10(5) versus (2.71±4.67)×10(5), P=0.61]. No patient died due to VTE or bleeding events.ConclusionsFor the prophylaxis of VTE, BID LMWH provided more potent efficacy and equal safety when compared to QD LMWH in patients undergoing selective esophagectomy. Further study based on larger population is required to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis in the Elderly: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets