不同溶栓药物治疗肺血栓栓塞症随机对照试验的meta分析

目的　根据现有临床研究评价重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂 (rt PA)与链激酶 (SK) /尿激酶(UK)治疗肺血栓栓塞症 (PTE)的有效性和安全性。方法　从MEDLINE和中国生物医学数据库光盘检索以人急性大面积和次大面积PTE为研究对象、比较rt PA与SK/UK治疗PTE效果的随机对照试验(RCT) ,并对RCT结果进行meta分析。结果　共 5项RCT 314例PTE入选 ,其中rt PA组 14 8例 ,SK和UK组 16 6例。与SK/UK治疗比较 ,rt PA降低PTE病死率和复发率的合并比数比 (OR合并)分别是 1.6 1(95 %CI为 0 .5 1～ 5 .11)和 0 .6 9(95 %CI为 0 .2 2～ 2 .13) ;溶栓治疗开始后 2小时平均肺动脉压的合并标准化均数差值是 - 4 .34mmHg (95 %CI- 6 .2 2～ - 2 .4 5 ) ;rt PA降低并发重要出血率OR合并为 1.0 0 (95 %CI为 0 .5 7～ 1.74 )。结论　rt PA治疗PTE的疗效和安全性与SK/UK相近 ,但rt PA能更快降低平均肺动脉压。     

不同溶栓药物治疗肺血栓栓塞症随机对照试验的meta分析

目的根据现有临床研究评价重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(rt—PA)与链激酶(SK)／尿激酶(UK)治疗肺血栓栓塞症(PTE)的有效性和安全性。方法从MEDLINE和中国生物医学数据库光盘检索以人急性大面积和次大面积PTE为研究对象、比较rtPA与SK／UK治疗PTE效果的随机对照试验(RCT)，并对RCT结果进行meta分析。结果共5项RCT314例PTE入选，其中rt—PA组148例，SK和UK组166例。与SK／UK治疗比较，rt—PA降低PTE病死率和复发率的合并比数比(ORen)分别是1．61(95％CI为0．51～5．11)和0．69(95％CI为0．22～2．13)；溶栓治疗开始后2小时平均肺动脉压的合并标准化均数差值是-4．34mmHg(95oACI-6．22～-2．45)；rt—PA降低并发重要出血率OR合并为1.00(95％CI为0．57～1.74)。结论rt—PA治疗PTE的疗效和安全性与SK／UK相近，但rt—PA能更快降低平均肺动脉压。     

下肢深静脉血栓形成的溶栓疗法和抗凝治疗的临床研究

目的：探讨溶栓、抗凝治疗对下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的疗效和长期抗凝治疗预防DVT复发疗效及副作用。方法：60例患应用尿激酶50万U／d，自患肢远端浅静脉滴入，疗程3～5天，第3天开始华发令抗凝治疗，3个月后54例患按华发令标准强度(INR2．0～3．0)抗凝组和低强度(INR1．5～2．0)抗凝组，统计其血栓复发率、出血率。结果：溶栓治疗的总有效率为81．7％，随访的两组患血栓复发与出血率无明显差异。结论：在DVT急性期给予足够尿激酶的溶栓治疗疗效确切、安全可靠。不同强度的华发令长期抗凝治疗疗效及副作用大致相同。     

肺血栓栓塞症的现代药物治疗新指南

肺血栓栓塞症(pulmonary thromboembolism,PTE)未予适当治疗其病死率达20%~30%,如能及时诊断、正确治疗,病死率可下降至8%以下。PTE的治疗方法包括全身抗凝、溶栓治疗、手术血栓切除术和血管再通术等。无论紧急情况下溶栓还是随后的抗凝治疗,药物治疗均是重要的内容。文献报道PTE患者经正规抗凝治疗3~6个月以上,静脉血栓的再栓塞率减少到2%~9%,未经抗凝治疗者,其中26%发展为致命性栓塞,另外26%出现非致命性栓塞。然而,抗凝治疗会带来出血等副作用,有时可出现大出血,因此对于临床怀疑为PTE的患者迅速确诊或除外相当重要,以避免不必要的…     

溶栓疗法对实验性急性肺血栓栓塞动物肺微血管P-、E-选择素表达水平及肺超微结构的影响

急性肺血栓栓塞症 (pulmonarythromboembolism ,PTE)发病凶险 ,溶栓治疗可迅速改善大面积PTE的血流动力学 ,恢复肺组织再灌注 ,降低患者病死率和复发率。但有报道大面积PTE患者溶栓治疗后会出现再灌注性肺水肿[1] 。选择素是一类介导白细胞与内皮细胞、血小板之间黏附的细胞黏附分子 ,在缺血 再灌注损伤中起重要的触发作用[2 ] 。本研究采用自体血栓注入法 ,建立急性PTE实验模型 ,旨在探讨溶栓疗法对P 、E 选择素表达水平及病变肺组织的病理形态变化的影响。材料与方法　实验分组 :健康日本大耳白兔 2 8只 ,体重2 0～ 2 5kg。按随机…     

重症巨块型肺血栓栓塞症的介入治疗

肺血栓栓塞症 (PTE)并非少见疾病 ,病死率较高 ,未经正确治疗的重症患者病死率达 2 5 %～ 30 % [1,2 ] 。绝大多数PTE继发于深静脉血栓形成 (DVT) ,传统的治疗方法主要有全身抗凝和溶栓。近年 ,介入技术开始用于重症PTE ,获得良好效果[3 ,4] ,由于其创伤小、清除血栓可靠、手术时间较短、并发症发生率较低 ,因此受到临床医师的重视。现报道我们应用介入技术治疗 10例巨块型PTE的初步经验。对象与方法　 2 0 0 0年 10月～ 2 0 0 3年 10月间用介入方法治疗PTE 10例 ,男 7例 ,女 3例 ;年龄 2 6～ 78岁 ;其中 9例存在下肢DVT ,左侧 6例…     

急性肺血栓栓塞症患者凝血纤溶标志物的临床价值

目的:探讨急性肺血栓栓塞症(PTE)患者溶栓治疗前后凝血纤溶标志物变化及临床意义。方法:采用酶联免疫吸附法检测36例急性PTE患者[其中大面积PTE(大面积PTE组)15例,次大面积PTE(次大面积PTE组)21例]及20例健康者为对照组的血浆凝血烷(TX)B2、6酮前列腺素F1α(6KetoPGF1α)和D二聚体,并比较PTE患者溶栓治疗前后各项指标的变化。结果:急性PTE患者大面积PTE组及次大面积PTE组血浆D二聚体、TXB2、TXB2/6KetoPGF1α值明显高于对照组,其中大面积PTE组血浆D二聚体、TXB2、TXB2/6KetoPGF1α值明显高于次大面积PTE组,均有极显著性差异(P<0.01)。急性PTE患者经溶栓和抗凝治疗后1周血浆D二聚体、TXB2及TXB2/6KetoPGF1α值较治疗前下降,有极显著性差异(P<0.01);而血浆6KetoPGF1α治疗后1周较治疗前有上升趋势。结论:检测凝血纤溶标志物对急性PTE患者诊断和疗效评估有临床意义。     

2 h尿激酶溶栓治疗老年人急性大面积肺栓塞18例临床分析

急性大面积肺血栓栓塞症（PTE）为临床危重症，病死率高，溶栓是其治疗的主要措施之一，目前国内外推荐的溶栓方案很多。1997—1999年国内有22家医院参加的“急性肺栓塞尿激酶溶栓、栓复欣抗凝治疗多中心临床试验”方案是尿激酶（UK）20000IU／kg，2h静脉滴注，有效率86．1％，无大出血发生，证实该方案安全，有效，简便易行。该方案对老年患者效果、安全性如何，为此我们总结近4年来选择2hUK溶栓治疗方案治疗老年人大面积PTE18例，报告如下：     

小剂量尿激酶溶栓治疗肺栓塞症(附28例报告)

肺血栓栓塞症 ( PTE)是一种高发病率、高误诊率、高病死率的疾病 [1] ,溶栓是其治疗的主要措施之一。目前 ,国内外推荐的溶栓方案较多 ,应用较多的是 2 4小时尿激酶 ( UK)溶栓法 ,但该方案并发症多 ,出血率高[2 ] ,似不适合国人。 1 998年以来 ,我们采用小剂量 UK2小时溶栓及低分子肝素抗凝治疗PTE,收到良好效果。现报告如下。1　临床资料观察对象为 2 8例具有溶栓指征的 PTE患者 ,男1 8例 ,女 1 0例 ;年龄 49.83± 1 0 .1 5岁。经螺旋 CT肺动脉造影 ( SCTPA )或数字减影肺动脉造影( DSAPA)确诊。临床表现为呼吸困难 2 4例 ,胸痛 …     

溶栓与非溶栓疗法治疗肺血栓栓塞症远期疗效比较

近年来对肺血栓栓塞症(PTE)的治疗主要是于急性期进行溶栓治疗，溶栓后即刻血流恢复、血液动力学改善，临床效果显而易见，但对其远期疗效研究甚少。有研究显示PTE溶栓与非溶栓治疗6个月后患者的血气结果无显著性差异，因此认为对非大面积PTE仅抗凝治疗即可取得满意的临床效果。     

阿替普酶初始溶栓序贯抗凝治疗老年急性次大面积肺栓塞疗效与安全性的meta分析

目的:系统评价阿替普酶初始溶栓序贯抗凝治疗老年急性次大面积肺栓塞(ASPE)的疗效与安全性。方法:检索中国知网、维普数据、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据、Medline、Embase、PubMed、The Cochrane Library、Clinical Trials,收集阿替普酶溶栓序贯抗凝对比单纯抗凝治疗ASP...     

Initial thrombolysis treatment compared with anticoagulation for acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis

Background

The use of thrombolysis in patients with acute, intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis and anticoagulation treatments for intermediate-risk PE patients.

Methods

Two investigators independently reviewed the literature and collected data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of thrombolysis for intermediate-risk PE in the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Databases (CBM).

Results

A total of 1,631 intermediate-risk PE patients from seven studies were included. Significant differences were not found regarding the 30-day, all-cause mortality rates between the thrombolytic and anticoagulant groups [odds ratio (OR), 0.60; 95% confident interval (CI), 0.34-1.06; P=0.08]. The rate of clinical deterioration in the thrombolytic group was lower than that in the anticoagulant group (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.41; P<0.01). Recurrent PE in the thrombolytic group was also significantly lower than that in the anticoagulant group (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77; P=0.01). Comparing the thrombolytic and anticoagulation groups, the incidence of minor bleeding was significantly higher in the thrombolytic group (OR, 5.33; 95% CI, 2.85-9.97; P<0.00001), but there were no difference in the incidences of major bleeding events (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.60-7.16; P=0.25).

Conclusions

Thrombolytic treatment for intermediate-risk PE patients, if not contraindicated, could reduce clinical deterioration and recurrence of PE, and trends towards a decrease in all-cause, 30-day mortality. Despite thrombolytic treatment having an increased total bleeding risk, there was no difference in the incidence of major bleeding events, compared with patients receiving anticoagulation treatment.     

Anterior vs conventional approach hepatectomy for large liver cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM:To evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of anterior-and conventional-approach hepatectomy for patients with large liver tumors.METHODS:Pub Med,EMBASE,Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials(RCTs)and controlled clinical trials comparing anterior-approach hepatectomy(AAH)and conventional-approach hepatectomy(CAH).Two observers independently extracted the data using a spreadsheet and assessed the studies for inclusion.Studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and addressed the clinical questions of this analysis were further assessed using either fixed effects or random effects models.RESULTS:Two RCTs and six controlled clinical trials involving 807 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria.A total of 363 patients underwent AAH and 444underwent CAH.Meta-analysis indicated that the AAH group had fewer requirements for transfusion(OR=0.37,95%CI:0.21-0.63),less recurrence(OR=0.57,95%CI:0.37-0.87),and lower mortality(OR=0.29,95%CI:0.13-0.63).There were no significant differences between AAH and CAH with regard to perioperative complications(OR=0.94,95%CI:0.58-1.51),intraoperative tumor rupture(OR=0.98,95%CI:0.40-2.40),or length of hospital stay(weighted mean difference=-0.17,95%CI:-2.36-2.02).CONCLUSION:AAH has advantages of decreased transfusion,mortality and recurrence compared to CAH.It is a safe and effective method for large cancers requiring right hepatectomy.     

浅析急性肺栓塞治疗中溶栓率的变化趋势

目的 比较急性肺栓塞溶栓与抗凝治疗的疗效,分析溶栓率的变化趋势.方法 对2001年1月至2009年12月间我院收治的190例肺栓塞患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,分为溶栓组与抗凝组,进行同期资料之间溶栓率的比较,并分别观察两组的有效率、出血率及复发率.结果 2001-2003年(A)、2004-2006年(B)、2007...     

Tenecteplase versus alteplase for management of acute ischemic stroke: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Tenecteplase is a genetically mutated variant of alteplase with superior pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. However, its efficacy and safety in acute ischemic strokes are limited. Hence, we conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase compared with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing tenecteplase with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients eligible for thrombolysis. We evaluated various efficacy and safety outcomes using random-effects models for both pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses along with meta-regression analyses. We included 5 RCTs with a total of 1585 patients. Compared with alteplase, tenecteplase treatment was associated with significantly greater complete recanalization (odd ratio [OR] 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–3.87; p?=?0.04) and early neurological improvement (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.01–2.03; p?=?0.05). There were no differences between the two thrombolytics in terms of excellent recovery (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0–1; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.95–1.44; p?=?0.13), functional independence (mRS 0–2; OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.78–1.98), poor recovery (mRS 4–6; OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.49–1.25; p?=?0.31), complete/partial recanalization (OR 1.51; 95% CI 0.70–3.26; p?=?0.30), any intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.56–1.17; p?=?0.26), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.52–1.83; p?=?0.94), or mortality (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.54–1.26; p?=?0.38). In network meta-analysis, there were better efficacy and imaging-based outcomes with tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg without increased risk of safety outcomes. Our results demonstrate that in acute ischemic stroke, thrombolysis with tenecteplase is at least as effective and safe as alteplase.     

达比加群酯对非瓣膜性房颤导管消融围术期抗凝疗效和安全性的 Meta 分析

目的：系统评价达比加群酯对非瓣膜性房颤导管消融围术期的抗凝疗效和安全性。方法计算机检索 PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library（2016年第2期）、CMB、知网、万方和维普数据库,搜集有关房颤导管消融围术期使用达比加群酯和华法林抗凝治疗的随机对照及非随机对照的研究文献,由两位评价员独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,采用 RevMan 5．3软件进行 Meta 分析。结果最终纳入23个研究、共7673例患者。Meta 分析结果显示：达比加群酯组脑卒中或短暂性脑缺血发生率与华法林组无明显区别[OR ＝1．0,95％CI：0．60～1．68,P ＝0．99],大出血事件发生率无明显区别[OR ＝0．79,95％CI：0．52～1．19, P ＝0．25],小出血事件发生率显著降低[OR ＝0．71,95％CI：0．57～0．87,P ＝0．001]。结论达比加群酯在房颤导管消融围术期抗凝疗效及大出血并发症的发生率上与华法林无明显区别,小出血并发症的发生率较华法林降低。     

Proton pump inhibitors in prevention of low-dose aspirin-associated upper gastrointestinal injuries

AIM:To determine the preventive effect and safety of proton pump inhibitors(PPIs) in low-dose aspirin(LDA)-associated gastrointestinal(GI) ulcers and bleeding.METHODS:We searched MEDLINE,EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from inception to December 2013,and checked conference abstracts of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on the effect of PPIs in reducing adverse GI events(hemorrhage,ulcer,perforation,or obstruction) in patients taking LDA.The preventive effects of PPIs were compared with the control group [taking placebo,a cytoprotective agent,or an H2 receptor antagonist(H2RA)] in LDA-associated upper GI injuries.The meta-analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.1 software.RESULTS:We evaluated 8780 participants in 10 RCTs.The meta-analysis showed that PPIs decreased the risk of LDA-associated upper GI ulcers(OR = 0.16;95%CI:0.12-0.23) and bleeding(OR = 0.27;95%CI:0.16-0.43) compared with control.For patients treated with dual anti-platelet therapy of LDA and clopidogrel,PPIs were able to prevent the LDA-associated GI bleeding(OR = 0.36;95%CI:0.15-0.87) without increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events(MACE)(OR = 1.00;95%CI:0.76-1.31).PPIs were superior to H2 RA in prevention of LDA-associated GI ulcers(OR = 0.12;95%CI:0.02-0.65) and bleeding(OR = 0.32;95%CI:0.13-0.79).CONCLUSION:PPIs are effective in preventing LDAassociated upper GI ulcers and bleeding.Concomitant use of PPI,LDA and clopidogrel did not increase the risk of MACE.     

Thromboembolic and bleeding risk of periprocedural bridging anticoagulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The risk and benefit of periprocedural heparin bridging is not completely clarified. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging anticoagulation prior to invasive procedures or surgery. Heparin bridging was associated with lower risks of thromboembolism and bleeding compared to non-bridging. PubMed, Ovid and Elsevier, and Cochrane Library (2000-2016) were searched for English-language studies. Studies comparing interrupted anticoagulation with or without bridging and continuous oral anticoagulation in patients at moderate-to-high thromboembolic risk before invasive procedures were included. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and bleeding events. Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models were used to analyze the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Eighteen studies (six randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies) were included (N = 23 364). There was no difference in thromboembolic risk between bridged and non-bridged patients (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.61-2.58; RCTs: RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.23-2.24; cohorts: RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63-3.37). However, bridging anticoagulation was associated with higher risk of overall bleeding (RR: 2.83, 95% CI: 2.00-4.01; RCTs: RR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.99-5.09; cohorts: RR: 3.09, 95% CI: 2.07-4.62) and major bleeding (RR: 3.00, 95% CI: 1.78-5.06; RCTs: RR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.29-4.76; cohorts: RR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.65-6.32). Bridging anticoagulation was associated with increased bleeding risk compared to non-bridging. Thromboembolism risk was similar between two strategies. Our results do not support routine use of bridging during anticoagulation interruption.     

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background

Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI.

Methods

We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life‐threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel‐Haenszel method.

Results

Three studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20‐0.87). There was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62‐1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52‐2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62‐2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70‐1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53‐2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45‐1.01), major and life‐threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37‐1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23‐1.18).

Conclusions

In patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.

     

Anterior vs conventional approach right hepatic resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM To compare the clinical outcomes of right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma via the anterior and conventional approach.METHODS We comprehensively performed an electronic search of Pub Med, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials(RCTs) or controlled clinical trials(CCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2017 concerning the anterior approach(AA) and the conventional approach(CA) to right hepatectomy. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included, and their outcome analyses were further assessed using a fixed or random effects model.RESULTS This analysis included 2297 patients enrolled in 16 studies(3 RCTs and 13 CTTs). Intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference =-255.21; 95% confidence interval(95%CI):-371.3 to-139.12; P 0.0001], intraoperative blood transfusion [odds ratio(OR) = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.29-0.61; P 0.0001], mortality(OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.38-0.92; P = 0.02), morbidity(OR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.62-0.95; P = 0.01), and recurrencerate(OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.47-0.83; P = 0.001) were significantly reduced in the AA group. Patients in the AA group had better overall survival(hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.50-1.00; P = 0.05) and disease-free survival(HR = 0.67; 95%CI: 0.58-0.79; P 0.0001) than those in the CA group.CONCLUSION The AA is safe and effective for right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma and could accelerate postoperative recovery and achieve better survival outcomes than the CA.