Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
20 References (20 articles) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Upper Extremity.

Journal Deutsches Arzteblatt international
Year 2017
Liens Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

Cet article inclut 18 Primary studies Primary studies (18 references) 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) arises with an incidence of about 1 per 1000 persons per year; 4-10% of all DVTs are located in an upper extremity (DVT-UE). DVT-UE can lead to complications such as post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism and carries a high mortality. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent literature, published from January 1980 to May 2016, that was retrieved by a systematic search, employing the PRISMA criteria, carried out in four databases: PubMed (n = 749), EMBASE (n = 789), SciSearch (n = 0), and the Cochrane Library (n = 12). Guidelines were included in the search. RESULTS: DVT-UE arises mainly in patients with severe underlying diseases, especially cancer (odds ratio [OR] 18.1; 95% confidence interval [9.4; 35.1]). The insertion of venous catheters-particularly central venous catheters-also elevates the risk of DVT-UE. Its clinical manifestations are nonspecific. Diagnostic algorithms are of little use, but ultrasonography is very helpful in diagnosis. DVT-UE is treated by anticoagulation, with heparin at first and then with oral anticoagulants. Direct oral anticoagulants are now being increasingly used. The thrombus is often not totally eradicated. Anticoagulation is generally continued as maintenance treatment for 3-6 months. Interventional techniques can be used for special indications. Patients with DVT-UE have a high mortality, though they often die of their underlying diseases rather than of the DVT-UE or its complications. CONCLUSION: DVT of the upper extremity is becoming increasingly common, though still much less common than DVT of the lower extremity. The treatment of choice is anticoagulation, which is given analogously to that given for DVT of the lower extremity.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Suboptimal Use of Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: Has the Introduction of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Improved Prescribing Practices?

Journal American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions
Year 2016
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 123 Primary studies Primary studies (123 references) 1 Systematic review Systematic reviews (1 reference)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and the associated risk of stroke are emerging epidemics throughout the world. Suboptimal use of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention has been widely reported from observational studies. In recent years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced for thromboprophylaxis. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate current practices of anticoagulation in AF, pharmacologic features and adoption patterns of DOACs, their impacts on proportion of eligible patients with AF who receive oral anticoagulants, persisting challenges and future prospects for optimal anticoagulation. LITERATURE SOURCE AND SELECTION CRITERIA: In conducting this review, we considered the results of relevant prospective and retrospective observational studies from real-world practice settings. PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus (RIS), Google Scholar, EMBASE and Web of Science were used to source relevant literature. There were no date limitations, while language was limited to English. Selection was limited to articles from peer reviewed journals and related to our topic. RESULTS: Most studies identified in this review indicated suboptimal use of anticoagulants is a persisting challenge despite the availability of DOACs. Underuse of oral anticoagulants is apparent particularly in patients with a high risk of stroke. DOAC adoption trends are quite variable, with slow integration into clinical practice reported in most countries; there has been limited impact to date on prescribing practice. CONCLUSION: Available data from clinical practice suggest that suboptimal oral anticoagulant use in patients with AF and poor compliance with guidelines still remain commonplace despite transition to a new era of anticoagulation featuring DOACs.

Broad synthesis / Guideline

Unclassified

Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Journal Chest
Year 2016
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 42 Primary studies Primary studies (42 references) 9 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (9 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: We update recommendations on 12 topics that were in the 9th edition of these guidelines, and address 3 new topics. METHODS: We generate strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high- (Grade A), moderate- (Grade B), and low- (Grade C) quality evidence. RESULTS: For VTE and no cancer, as long-term anticoagulant therapy, we suggest dabigatran (Grade 2B), rivaroxaban (Grade 2B), apixaban (Grade 2B), or edoxaban (Grade 2B) over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy, and suggest VKA therapy over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH; Grade 2C). For VTE and cancer, we suggest LMWH over VKA (Grade 2B), dabigatran (Grade 2C), rivaroxaban (Grade 2C), apixaban (Grade 2C), or edoxaban (Grade 2C). We have not changed recommendations for who should stop anticoagulation at 3 months or receive extended therapy. For VTE treated with anticoagulants, we recommend against an inferior vena cava filter (Grade 1B). For DVT, we suggest not using compression stockings routinely to prevent PTS (Grade 2B). For subsegmental pulmonary embolism and no proximal DVT, we suggest clinical surveillance over anticoagulation with a low risk of recurrent VTE (Grade 2C), and anticoagulation over clinical surveillance with a high risk (Grade 2C). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism with hypotension (Grade 2B), and systemic therapy over catheter-directed thrombolysis (Grade 2C). For recurrent VTE on a non-LMWH anticoagulant, we suggest LMWH (Grade 2C); for recurrent VTE on LMWH, we suggest increasing the LMWH dose (Grade 2C). CONCLUSIONS: Of 54 recommendations included in the 30 statements, 20 were strong and none was based on high-quality evidence, highlighting the need for further research.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Risk–Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies

Journal Drug Safety
Year 2016
Liens Pubmed DOI PubMed Central www.epistemonikos.org

Cet article inclut 12 Primary studies Primary studies (12 references) 43 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (43 references)

Loading references information
Since 2008, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic options of cardiovascular diseases with recognized clinical and epidemiological impact, such as non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and also in the preventive setting of orthopedic surgical patients. The large body of evidence, not only from pivotal clinical trials but also from ‘real-world’ postmarketing observational findings (e.g. analytical epidemiological studies and registry data) gathered to date allow for a first attempt at verifying a posteriori whether or not the pharmacological advantages of the DOACs actually translate into therapeutic innovation, with relevant implications for clinicians, regulators and patients. This review aims to synthesize the risk–benefit profile of DOACs in the aforementioned consolidated indications through an ‘evidence summary’ approach gathering the existent evidence-based data, particularly systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, as well as observational studies, comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists. Clinical evidence will be discussed and compared with major international guidelines to identify whether an update is needed. Controversial clinically relevant safety issues will be also examined in order to highlight current challenges and unsettled questions (e.g. actual bleeding risk in susceptible populations). It is anticipated that the large number of publications on NVAF or VTE (44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses and 12 observational studies retained in our analysis) suggests the potential existence of overlapping studies and calls for common criteria to qualitatively and quantitatively assess discordances, thus guiding future research.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Critical appraisal of network meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation stroke prevention trials

Journal Value in Health
Year 2015
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 11 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (11 references)

Loading references information
Objectives To critically appraise published network meta-analyses (NMAs) evaluating the efficacy or safety of the new oral anticogulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify the relevant NMAs using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment. The synthesis studies were evaluated using the "Questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of the NMA." Results Eleven NMAs evaluating NOACs among adults with nonvalvular AF were identified. Most NMAs included three large phase III randomized controlled trials, comparing NOACs to adjusted-dose warfarin (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy [RE-LY], Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation [ROCKET-AF], and Apixaban for Reduction of Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]). The main differences identified related to potential treatment effect modifiers regarding the mean time spent in therapeutic range (TTR) in the warfarin arm, the risk of stroke or systemic embolism across the trials (mean CHADS2 score: C = congestive heart failure, H = hypertension, A = older than age 75 years, D = diabetes mellitus, S2 = prior stroke or history of transient ischemic attack) or primary versus secondary prevention, and type of populations used in the analysis. Kansal et al. [Kansal AR, Sharma M, Bradley-Kennedy C, et al. Dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in Canada: comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Thromb Haemost 2012;108:672-82] appropriately adjusted the ROCKET-AF TTR to match the RE-LY population on the basis of individual patient data. Meta-regressions are not expected to minimize confounding bias given limited data, whereas subgroup analyses had some impact on the point estimates for the treatment comparisons. Conclusions Results of the synthesis studies were generally comparable and suggested that the NOACs had similar efficacy, although some differences were identified depending on the outcome. The extent to which differences in the distribution of TTR, CHADS2 score, or primary versus secondary prevention biased the results remains unclear.

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Does aspirin reduce recurrence after completing anticoagulant treatment for an idiopathic thromboembolic event?

Auteurs Valenzuela A , Aizman A
Journal Medwave
Year 2015
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 4 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (4 references) 2 Primary studies Primary studies (2 references)

Loading references information
Idiopathic thromboembolic disease presents a high risk of recurrence. There is controversy about the effects of aspirin in reducing this risk after the completion of anticoagulant treatment. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which screens 30 databases, we identified four systematic reviews that together include two randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded that aspirin administered after having completed anticoagulation reduces the risk of recurrence, probably without importantly increasing the risk of hemorrhage.

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Is percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage comparable to anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation?

Auteurs Uslar T , Anabalón J
Journal Medwave
Year 2015
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 1 Primary study Primary studies (1 reference) 3 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (3 references)

Loading references information
For most atrial fibrillation patients oral anticoagulation constitutes the standard treatment to prevent stroke. However, they carry a risk of bleeding, which is why alternative treatments have been put into practice, such as percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage. It is not clear whether this is as effective as the conventional treatment with anticoagulants. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified three systematic reviews including only one pertinent randomized controlled trial. We combined the evidence and generated a summary of findings following the GRADE approach. We concluded that percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion may decrease stroke and mortality, but the certainty of the evidence is low. The effect on other outcomes is not clear because the certainty of the evidence is very low.

Broad synthesis / Living FRISBEE

Unclassified

Low molecular weight heparin in one or two doses for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolic disease?

Journal Medwave
Year 2015
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references) 5 Primary studies Primary studies (5 references)

Loading references information
The preferred dosification for low molecular weight heparins is in two doses for most patients with venous thromboembolic disease. A daily dose would make treatment simpler, less expensive and more comfortable while retaining a similar benefit and safety. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified two systematic reviews including five randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether the risk of recurrence differs between the two alternatives because the certainty of the evidence is very low, and that administering low molecular weight heparin in two doses might be associated to little or no difference in the risk of major bleeding and mortality.

Broad synthesis / Guideline

Unclassified

Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: the Saudi clinical practice guideline.

Journal Annals of Saudi medicine
Year 2015
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 6 Primary studies Primary studies (6 references) 5 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (5 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly encountered in the daily clinical practice. Cancer is an important VTE risk factor. Proper thromboprophylaxis is key to prevent VTE in patients with cancer, and proper treatment is essential to reduce VTE complications and adverse events associated with the therapy. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University working group produced this clinical practice guideline to assist health care providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for VTE prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer. METHODS: Six questions related to thromboprophylaxis and antithrombotic therapy were identified and the corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: Question 1. Should heparin versus no heparin be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against routine thromboprophylaxis with heparin (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 2. Should oral anticoagulation versus no oral anticoagulation be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 3. Should parenteral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with parenteral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 4. Should oral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters? RECOMMENDATION: For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; low quality evidence).Question 5. Should low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin be used in patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism? RECOMMENDATION: In patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests low-molecular-weight heparin over intravenous unfractionated heparin (weak; very low quality evidence).Question 6. Should heparin versus oral anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE? RECOMMENDATION: In patients with metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). In patients with non-metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests LMWH over VKA (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).

Broad synthesis / Guideline

Unclassified

The Saudi Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. Outpatient versus inpatient management.

Journal Saudi medical journal
Year 2015
Liens Pubmed DOI

Cet article inclut 2 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (2 references) 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references)

Loading references information
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) is commonly encountered in daily clinical practice. After diagnosis, its management frequently carries significant challenges to the clinical practitioner. Treatment of VTE with the inappropriate modality and/or in the inappropriate setting may lead to serious complications and have life-threatening consequences. As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University Guideline working group, this clinical practice guideline was produced to assist health care providers in VTE management. Two questions were identified and were related to the inpatient versus outpatient treatment of acute DVT, and the early versus standard discharge from hospital for patients with acute PE. The corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.