• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

达比加群所致胃肠道出血:与华法林的比较研究——一项多中心经验

Gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran, a comparative study with warfarin: a multicenter experience.

作者信息

Sherid Muhammed, Sifuentes Humberto, Sulaiman Samian, Samo Salih, Husein Husein, Tupper Ruth, Spurr Charles, Sridhar Subbaramiah

出版信息

Korean J Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr;65(4):205-14. doi: 10.4166/kjg.2015.65.4.205.

DOI:10.4166/kjg.2015.65.4.205
PMID:25896154
Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with dabigatran when compared to warfarin has been controversial in the literature. The aim of our study was to assess this risk with the use of dabigatran.

METHODS

We examined the medical records of patients who were started on dabigatran or warfarin from October 2010 to October 2012. The study was conducted in two hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients were included (208 dabigatran vs. 209 warfarin). GI bleeding occurred in 10 patients (4.8%) in the dabigatran group compared to 21 patients (10.1%) in the warfarin group (p=0.0375). Multivariate analysis showed that patients who were on dabigatran for ≤ 100 days had a higher incidence of GI bleeding than those who were on it for >100 days (p=0.0007). The odds of GI bleeding in patients who were on dabigatran for ≤ 100 days was 8.2 times higher compared to those who were on the drug for >100 days. The incidence of GI bleeding in patients >65 years old was higher than in those <65 years old (p=0.0453, OR=3). History of previous GI bleeding was another risk factor for GI bleeding in the dabigatran group (p=0.036, OR=6.3). The lower GI tract was the most common site for GI bleeding in the dabigatran group (80.0% vs. 38.1%, p=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of GI bleeding was lower with dabigatran. The risk factors for GI bleeding with dabigatran were the first 100 days, age >65 years, and a history of previous GI bleeding.

摘要

背景/目的:与华法林相比,达比加群所致胃肠道(GI)出血的风险在文献中一直存在争议。我们研究的目的是使用达比加群评估这一风险。

方法

我们查阅了2010年10月至2012年10月开始使用达比加群或华法林的患者的病历。该研究在两家医院进行。

结果

共纳入417例患者(208例使用达比加群,209例使用华法林)。达比加群组有10例患者(4.8%)发生胃肠道出血,而华法林组有21例患者(10.1%)发生胃肠道出血(p=0.0375)。多因素分析显示,使用达比加群≤100天的患者胃肠道出血发生率高于使用时间>100天的患者(p=0.0007)。使用达比加群≤100天的患者发生胃肠道出血的几率比使用该药物>100天的患者高8.2倍。65岁以上患者胃肠道出血的发生率高于65岁以下患者(p=0.0453,OR=3)。既往胃肠道出血史是达比加群组胃肠道出血的另一个危险因素(p=0.036,OR=6.3)。下消化道是达比加群组胃肠道出血最常见的部位(80.0%对38.1%,p=0.014)。

结论

达比加群所致胃肠道出血的风险较低。达比加群所致胃肠道出血的危险因素为最初100天、年龄>65岁和既往胃肠道出血史。

相似文献

1
Gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran, a comparative study with warfarin: a multicenter experience.达比加群所致胃肠道出血:与华法林的比较研究——一项多中心经验
Korean J Gastroenterol. 2015 Apr;65(4):205-14. doi: 10.4166/kjg.2015.65.4.205.
2
A comparison of the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran and warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in a large healthcare system.在大型医疗体系中比较达比加群酯和华法林在非瓣膜性心房颤动患者中的安全性和有效性。
Thromb Haemost. 2015 Nov 25;114(6):1290-8. doi: 10.1160/TH15-06-0453. Epub 2015 Oct 8.
3
Evaluation of Bleeding Events Requiring Hospitalization in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Dabigatran, Warfarin, or Antiplatelet Therapy.对接受达比加群、华法林或抗血小板治疗的房颤患者中需要住院治疗的出血事件的评估。
J Pharm Pract. 2017 Apr;30(2):214-218. doi: 10.1177/0897190016630408. Epub 2016 Jul 8.
4
Comparative risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin: population based cohort study.达比加群、利伐沙班和华法林导致胃肠道出血的比较风险:基于人群的队列研究。
BMJ. 2015 Apr 24;350:h1857. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1857.
5
Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding Often Is Caused by Occult Malignancy in Patients Receiving Warfarin or Dabigatran to Prevent Stroke and Systemic Embolism From Atrial Fibrillation.华法林或达比加群预防房颤卒中及全身性栓塞的患者常因隐匿性恶性肿瘤而发生主要胃肠道出血。
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 May;15(5):682-690. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.10.011. Epub 2016 Oct 17.
6
Locations and Mucosal Lesions Responsible for Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients on Warfarin or Dabigatran.华法林或达比加群治疗患者的主要胃肠道出血的部位和黏膜病变。
Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Jul;63(7):1878-1889. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5007-6. Epub 2018 Mar 27.
7
Predictors of gastrointestinal bleeding among patients with atrial fibrillation after initiating dabigatran therapy.达比加群酯治疗心房颤动患者后胃肠道出血的预测因素
Pharmacotherapy. 2015 Jun;35(6):560-8. doi: 10.1002/phar.1597. Epub 2015 Jun 4.
8
Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral anticoagulants: population based retrospective cohort study.口服抗凝剂相关的胃肠道出血风险:基于人群的回顾性队列研究。
BMJ. 2015 Apr 24;350:h1585. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1585.
9
Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.老年 Medicare 患者在非瓣膜性心房颤动中接受达比加群或华法林治疗的心血管、出血和死亡率风险。
Circulation. 2015 Jan 13;131(2):157-64. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012061. Epub 2014 Oct 30.
10
Evaluation of Dabigatran- and Warfarin-Associated Hemorrhagic Events Using the FDA-Adverse Event Reporting System Database Stratified by Age.使用美国食品药品监督管理局不良事件报告系统数据库,按年龄分层评估达比加群和华法林相关出血事件。
Int J Med Sci. 2015 Mar 28;12(4):312-21. doi: 10.7150/ijms.10703. eCollection 2015.

引用本文的文献

1
Risk factors for anticoagulant-associated gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.抗凝相关胃肠道出血的危险因素:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Korean J Intern Med. 2024 Jan;39(1):77-85. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2023.098. Epub 2023 Dec 8.
2
Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Non-Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.达比加群酯与维生素 K 拮抗剂在非亚洲心房颤动患者中的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Drug Investig. 2021 Nov;41(11):941-953. doi: 10.1007/s40261-021-01091-w. Epub 2021 Oct 13.
3
The association between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis of observational studies.
非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂与胃肠道出血之间的关联:一项观察性研究的荟萃分析。
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Jul;82(1):285-300. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12911. Epub 2016 Apr 15.