Dentali Francesco, Douketis James D, Gianni Monica, Lim Wendy, Crowther Mark A
McMaster University and St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Feb 20;146(4):278-88. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-4-200702200-00007.
Underutilization of anticoagulant prophylaxis may be due to lack of evidence that prophylaxis prevents clinically important outcomes in hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism.
To assess the effects of anticoagulant prophylaxis in reducing clinically important outcomes in hospitalized medical patients.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to September 2006 without language restrictions.
Randomized trials comparing anticoagulant prophylaxis with no treatment in hospitalized medical patients.
Any symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), fatal PE, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Pooled relative risks and associated 95% CIs were calculated. For treatment effects that were statistically significant, the authors determined the absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat for benefit (NNT(B)) to prevent an outcome.
9 studies (n = 19 958) were included. During anticoagulant prophylaxis, patients had significant reductions in any PE (relative risk, 0.43 [CI, 0.26 to 0.71]; absolute risk reduction, 0.29%; NNT(B), 345) and fatal PE (relative risk, 0.38 [CI, 0.21 to 0.69]; absolute risk reduction, 0.25%; NNT(B), 400), a nonsignificant reduction in symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (relative risk, 0.47 [CI, 0.22 to 1.00]), and a nonsignificant increase in major bleeding (relative risk, 1.32 [CI, 0.73 to 2.37]). Anticoagulant prophylaxis had no effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.97 [CI, 0.79 to 1.19]).
2 of 9 included studies were not double-blind.
Anticoagulant prophylaxis is effective in preventing symptomatic venous thromboembolism during anticoagulant prophylaxis in at-risk hospitalized medical patients. Additional research is needed to determine the risk for venous thromboembolism in these patients after prophylaxis has been stopped.
抗凝预防措施未得到充分利用,可能是因为缺乏证据表明该预防措施可预防有静脉血栓栓塞风险的住院内科患者出现具有临床重要意义的结局。
评估抗凝预防措施对降低住院内科患者具有临床重要意义的结局的效果。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库至2006年9月,无语言限制。
比较住院内科患者抗凝预防措施与不进行治疗的随机试验。
任何有症状的肺栓塞(PE)、致命性PE、有症状的深静脉血栓形成、全因死亡率和大出血。计算合并相对风险及相关的95%可信区间。对于具有统计学显著性的治疗效果,作者确定了绝对风险降低率和为预防某种结局所需的治疗获益人数(NNT(B))。
纳入9项研究(n = 19958)。在进行抗凝预防期间,患者出现任何PE的情况显著减少(相对风险,0.43 [可信区间,0.26至0.71];绝对风险降低率,0.29%;NNT(B),345)以及致命性PE显著减少(相对风险,0.38 [可信区间,0.21至0.69];绝对风险降低率,0.25%;NNT(B),400),有症状深静脉血栓形成有非显著性减少(相对风险,0.47 [可信区间,0.22至1.00]),大出血有非显著性增加(相对风险,1.32 [可信区间,0.73至2.37])。抗凝预防措施对全因死亡率无影响(相对风险,0.97 [可信区间,0.79至1.19])。
9项纳入研究中有2项非双盲研究。
对于有风险的住院内科患者,抗凝预防措施在预防抗凝期间有症状的静脉血栓栓塞方面有效。需要进一步研究以确定停止预防措施后这些患者发生静脉血栓栓塞的风险。