Anand S S, Yusuf S
Program of Preventive Cardiology and Therapeutics, Hamilton Civic Hospitals Research Centre, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA. 1999 Dec 1;282(21):2058-67. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.21.2058.
Despite years of use in coronary artery disease (CAD) and several studies of its effectiveness, the role of oral anticoagulants (OAs) remains controversial.
To determine the effects of long-term OA therapy, stratified by the intensities of anticoagulation and aspirin therapy, on outcomes in patients with CAD.
Studies were identified by MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CURRENT CONTENTS searches (1960-July 1999) and by reviewing reference lists and inquiring with experts and pharmaceutical companies.
Studies were included if they were published between 1960 and July 1999, were randomized, had recruited patients with CAD, who had used OA therapy for at least 3 months. Of 43 articles identified, 30 articles (31 trials) were analyzed.
Information on type, duration, and method of monitoring OA therapy, as well as rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), thromboembolic complications, stroke, and bleeding were abstracted by 2 independent observers.
With high-intensity (international normalized ratio [INR], 2.8-4.8) OAs vs control (16 trials, 10056 patients), clear reductions in mortality (odds reduction [ORed], 22%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13%-31%), MIs (ORed, 42%; 95% CI, 34%-48%), and thromboembolic complications including stroke (ORed, 63%; 95% CI, 53-71%) were observed, but were associated with a 6.0-fold (95% CI, 4.4- to 8.2-fold) increase in major bleeding. For moderate OAs (INR, 2-3) vs control (4 trials, 1365 patients) the ORed for death was 18% (95% CI, -6% to 37%); for MI, 52% (95% CI, 37%-64%); and for stroke, 53% (95% CI, 19%-73%), but it increased bleeding by 7.7-fold (95% CI, 3.3- to 18-fold). For moderate- to high-intensity OAs (INR, > or =2) vs aspirin (7 trials, 3457 patients), no reduction in death, MI, or stroke was observed, and it was associated with a 2.4-fold (95% CI, 1.6- to 3.6-fold) increase in major bleeding. For moderate- to high-intensity OAs and aspirin vs aspirin alone (3 trials, 480 patients), the ORed for death, MI, or stroke was 56% (95% CI, 17%-77%) and major bleeding increased by 1.9-fold (0.6- to 6.0-fold). For low-intensity OAs (INR, <2.0) and aspirin vs aspirin alone (3 trials, 8435 patients), no significant reduction in death, MI, or stroke was observed, and major bleeding increased by 1.3-fold (95% CI, 1.0- to 1.8-fold).
Among patients with CAD, high-intensity and moderate-intensity OA are effective in reducing MI and stroke but increase the risk of bleeding. In the presence of aspirin, low-intensity OA does not appear to be superior to aspirin alone, while moderate- to high-intensity OA and aspirin vs aspirin alone appears promising and the bleeding risk is modest, but this requires confirmation from ongoing trials.
尽管口服抗凝剂(OA)已在冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的治疗中应用多年,且有多项关于其疗效的研究,但OA的作用仍存在争议。
确定长期OA治疗(根据抗凝强度和阿司匹林治疗分层)对CAD患者预后的影响。
通过MEDLINE、EMBASE和《现刊目次》检索(1960年 - 1999年7月),并查阅参考文献列表以及咨询专家和制药公司来识别研究。
纳入1960年至1999年7月间发表的、随机分组、招募CAD患者且使用OA治疗至少3个月的研究。在识别出的43篇文章中,分析了30篇文章(31项试验)。
由2名独立观察者提取关于OA治疗的类型、持续时间和监测方法的信息,以及死亡、心肌梗死(MI)、血栓栓塞并发症、中风和出血的发生率。
高强度(国际标准化比值[INR],2.8 - 4.8)OA与对照组相比(16项试验,10056例患者),死亡率(优势比降低[ORed],22%;95%置信区间[CI],13% - 31%)、心肌梗死(ORed,42%;95% CI,34% - 48%)和包括中风在内的血栓栓塞并发症(ORed,63%;95% CI,53% - 71%)明显降低,但主要出血增加了6.0倍(95% CI,4.4 - 8.2倍)。中度OA(INR,2 - 3)与对照组相比(4项试验,1365例患者),死亡的ORed为18%(95% CI, - 6%至37%);心肌梗死为52%(95% CI,37% - 64%);中风为53%(95% CI,19% - 73%),但出血增加了7.7倍(95% CI,3.3 - 18倍)。中度至高强度OA(INR,≥2)与阿司匹林相比(7项试验,3457例患者),未观察到死亡、心肌梗死或中风的降低,且主要出血增加了2.4倍(95% CI,1.6 - 3.6倍)。中度至高强度OA和阿司匹林与单独使用阿司匹林相比(3项试验,480例患者),死亡、心肌梗死或中风的ORed为56%(95% CI,17% - 77%),主要出血增加了1.9倍(0.6 - 6.0倍)。低强度OA(INR,<2.0)和阿司匹林与单独使用阿司匹林相比(3项试验,8435例患者),未观察到死亡、心肌梗死或中风的显著降低,主要出血增加了1.3倍(95% CI,1.0 - 1.8倍)。
在CAD患者中,高强度和中度强度的OA在降低心肌梗死和中风方面有效,但增加了出血风险。在使用阿司匹林的情况下,低强度OA似乎并不优于单独使用阿司匹林,而中度至高强度OA和阿司匹林与单独使用阿司匹林相比似乎有前景且出血风险适中,但这需要正在进行的试验予以证实。