Literature DB >> 26134342

Lack of consistency in the relationship between asymptomatic DVT detected by venography and symptomatic VTE in thromboprophylaxis trials.

Noel C Chan1, Alexander C Stehouwer, Jack Hirsh, Jeffrey S Ginsberg, Ashraf Alazzoni, Michiel Coppens, Gordon H Guyatt, John W Eikelboom.   

Abstract

Asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) detected by mandatory venography, a surrogate outcome, comprises most of the efficacy outcome events in recent thromboprophylaxis trials. The validity of this surrogate to estimate trade-off between thrombotic and bleeding events in these clinical trials requires a consistent relationship between asymptomatic DVT and symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). In this systematic review of high quality VTE prevention trials, we examined the consistency of the ratios of asymptomatic DVT to symptomatic VTE across a broad range of indications. Studies were identified from citations listed in the chapters on VTE prevention in the antithrombotic guidelines by the American College of Chest Physicians, 2012. A study was eligible if it: 1) was a randomised trial comparing an anticoagulant with standard of care; 2) included at least 500 participants; 3) reported asymptomatic or all DVT rates; and 4) reported symptomatic VTE rates. Of the 26 eligible trials, 19 trials were conducted in orthopaedic patients, five in general surgery patients and two in general medical patients. The overall median rates (ranges) for asymptomatic DVT and symptomatic VTE were 9.11 % (0.75 to 54.87 %) and 0.49 % (0.00 to 3.10 %), respectively. The median ratio was 14.53, with a wide range (2.75 to 103.86). Wide variability in the ratios persisted despite indication- and anticoagulant-specific analyses. In VTE prevention trials of alternative anticoagulants, the wide variability in the ratios of asymptomatic DVT to symptomatic VTE precludes judging the trade-off between thrombotic and bleeding events on the basis of composite outcomes dominated by venographic DVT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Venography; clinical trials; heparins/LMWH; oral anticoagulants; surrogate marker; venous thrombosis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26134342     DOI: 10.1160/TH14-12-1006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thromb Haemost        ISSN: 0340-6245            Impact factor:   5.249


  10 in total

1.  A Caprini Risk Score-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Enoxaparin for the Thromboprophylaxis of Patients After Nonorthopedic Surgery in a Chinese Healthcare Setting.

Authors:  Yun Bao; Gang Zhao; Shuli Qu; Tengbin Xiong; Xingxing Yao; Bin Wu
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.859

2.  Post-hepatectomy venous thromboembolism: a systematic review with meta-analysis exploring the role of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

Authors:  Monish Karunakaran; Ramneek Kaur; Simi Ismail; Sushma Cherukuru; Pavan Kumar Jonnada; Baiju Senadhipan; Savio George Barreto
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Efficacy and Safety of Intensified Versus Standard Prophylactic Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nicola K Wills; Nikhil Nair; Kashyap Patel; Omaike Sikder; Marguerite Adriaanse; John Eikelboom; Sean Wasserman
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 4.423

4.  DOACs vs LMWHs in hospitalized medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis that informed 2018 ASH guidelines.

Authors:  Ignacio Neumann; Ariel Izcovich; Yuqing Zhang; Gabriel Rada; Susan R Kahn; Frederick Spencer; Suely Rezende; Franchesco Dentali; Kenneth Bauer; Gian Paolo Morgano; Juan J Yepes-Nuñez; Robby Nieuwlaat; Wojtek Wiercioch; Liming Lu; Jiaming Wu; Mary Cushman; Holger Schunemann
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-04-14

5.  Primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients with a high Khorana score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Floris T M Bosch; Frits I Mulder; Pieter Willem Kamphuisen; Saskia Middeldorp; Patrick M Bossuyt; Harry R Büller; Nick van Es
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-10-27

6.  Efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin after knee arthroscopy: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hai-Feng Huang; Jia-Liang Tian; Xian-Teng Yang; Li Sun; Ru-Yin Hu; Zhi-Hui Yan; Shan-Shan Li; Quan Xie; Xiao-Bin Tian
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Incidence, prognostic factors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: data from two prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  Ruben J Eck; Lisa Hulshof; Renske Wiersema; Chris H L Thio; Bart Hiemstra; Niels C Gritters van den Oever; Reinold O B Gans; Iwan C C van der Horst; Karina Meijer; Frederik Keus
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 9.097

8.  Efficacy and safety of intensified versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nicola K Wills; Nikhil Nair; Kashyap Patel; Omaike Sikder; Marguerite Adriaanse; John Eikelboom; Sean Wasserman
Journal:  medRxiv       Date:  2022-03-07

Review 9.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may cause more harm than benefit: an evidence-based analysis of Canadian and international guidelines.

Authors:  Andrew Kotaska
Journal:  Thromb J       Date:  2018-10-10

10.  Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with temporary lower limb immobilization after injury: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Horner; John W Stevens; Abdullah Pandor; Tim Nokes; Jonathan Keenan; Kerstin de Wit; Steve Goodacre
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 5.824

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.