OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the benefits of intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Eleven RCTs, comparing IV to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy, were included. Meta-analyses were performed with Stata software (College Station, TX), utilizing random effects model and method of DerSimonian and Laird. Outcomes were assessed by pooled odds ratios (OR) or pooled weighted mean difference (WMD). Sensitivity analyses were performed for heterogeneity. RESULTS: We found that pregnant women receiving IV iron, compared with oral iron, had the following benefits: (1) Achieved target hemoglobin more often, pooled OR 2.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-4.15), p < 0.001; (2) Increased hemoglobin level after 4 weeks, pooled WMD 0.84 g/dL (95% CI: 0.59-1.09), p < 0.001; (3) Decreased adverse reactions, pooled OR 0.35 (95% CI: 0.18-0.67), p = 0.001. Results were unchanged following sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, IV iron is superior to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy. Women receiving IV iron more often achieve desired hemoglobin targets, faster and with fewer side effects. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the benefits of intravenous (IV) iron in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. Eleven RCTs, comparing IV to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy, were included. Meta-analyses were performed with Stata software (College Station, TX), utilizing random effects model and method of DerSimonian and Laird. Outcomes were assessed by pooled odds ratios (OR) or pooled weighted mean difference (WMD). Sensitivity analyses were performed for heterogeneity. RESULTS: We found that pregnant women receiving IV iron, compared with oral iron, had the following benefits: (1) Achieved target hemoglobin more often, pooled OR 2.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71-4.15), p < 0.001; (2) Increased hemoglobin level after 4 weeks, pooled WMD 0.84 g/dL (95% CI: 0.59-1.09), p < 0.001; (3) Decreased adverse reactions, pooled OR 0.35 (95% CI: 0.18-0.67), p = 0.001. Results were unchanged following sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, IV iron is superior to oral iron for treatment of iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy. Women receiving IV iron more often achieve desired hemoglobin targets, faster and with fewer side effects. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
Authors: Pervez Sultan; Sohail Bampoe; Raj Shah; Nan Guo; Jaclyn Estes; Christopher Stave; Lawrence Tim Goodnough; Stephen Halpern; Alex James Butwick Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elio Venturini; Gabriella Iannuzzo; Anna DI Lorenzo; Gianluigi Cuomo; Andrea D'Angelo; Pasquale Merone; Giuseppe Cudemo; Mario Pacileo; Antonello D'Andrea; Carlo Vigorito; Francesco Giallauria Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Jacinta I Kalisch-Smith; Nikita Ved; Dorota Szumska; Jacob Munro; Michael Troup; Shelley E Harris; Helena Rodriguez-Caro; Aimée Jacquemot; Jack J Miller; Eleanor M Stuart; Magda Wolna; Emily Hardman; Fabrice Prin; Eva Lana-Elola; Rifdat Aoidi; Elizabeth M C Fisher; Victor L J Tybulewicz; Timothy J Mohun; Samira Lakhal-Littleton; Sarah De Val; Eleni Giannoulatou; Duncan B Sparrow Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 14.919