Dong Kezhou, Song Yanzhi, Li Xiaodong, Ding Jie, Gao Zhiyong, Lu Daopei, Zhu Yimin
Department of Respiration, The 2nd Jiangsu Province Hospital of TCM, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, No.155, Hanzhong Road, Nanjing, China.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 31;10(10):CD005134. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005134.pub3.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common condition with potentially serious and life-threatening consequences. The standard method of thromboprophylaxis uses an anticoagulant such as low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or warfarin. In recent years, another type of anticoagulant, pentasaccharide, an indirect factor Xa inhibitor, has shown good anticoagulative effect in clinical trials. Three types of pentasaccharides are available: short-acting fondaparinux, long-acting idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux. Pentasaccharides cause little heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and are better tolerated than unfractionated heparin, LMWH and warfarin. However, no consensus has been reached on whether pentasaccharides are superior or inferior to other anticoagulative methods.
To assess effects of pentasaccharides versus other methods of thromboembolic prevention (thromboprophylaxis) in people who require anticoagulant treatment to prevent venous thromboembolism.
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2). The CIS searched trial databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. Review authors searched LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) and the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified by electronic searches.
We included randomised controlled trials on any type of pentasaccharide versus other anticoagulation methods (pharmaceutical or mechanical) for VTE prevention.
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data in predesigned tables.
We included in this review 25 studies with a total of 21,004 participants. All investigated fondaparinux for VTE prevention; none investigated idraparinux or idrabiotaparinux. Studies included participants undergoing abdominal surgery, thoracic surgery, bariatric surgery or coronary bypass surgery; acutely ill hospitalised medical patients; people requiring rigid or semirigid immobilisation; and those with superficial venous thrombosis. Most studies focused on orthopaedic patients. We lowered the quality of the evidence because of heterogeneity between studies and a small number of events causing imprecision.When comparing fondaparinux with placebo, we found less total VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.38; 5717 participants; 8 studies; I = 64%; P < 0.00001), less symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.36; 6503 participants; 8 studies; I = 0%; P < 0.0001), less total DVT (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.40; 5715 participants; 8 studies; I = 67%; P < 0.00001), less proximal DVT (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39; 2746 participants; 7 studies; I = 64%; P = 0.0004) and less total pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.62; 6412 participants; 8 studies; I = 0%; P = 0.008) in the fondaparinux group. The quality of the evidence was moderate for total VTE, total DVT and proximal DVT, and high for symptomatic VTE and total PE.When fondaparinux was compared with LMWH, analyses indicated that fondaparinux reduced total VTE and DVT (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; 9339 participants; 11 studies; I = 64%; P < 0.0001; and RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.71; 9356 participants; 10 studies; I = 67%; P < 0.0001, respectively), and showed a trend toward reduced proximal DVT (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.02; 8361 participants; 9 studies; I = 53%; P = 0.06). Symptomatic VTE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.63; 12240 participants; 9 studies; I = 35%; P = 0.90) and total PE (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.34; 12350 participants; 10 studies; I = 0%; P = 0.51) indicated no difference between fondaparinux and LMWH. The quality of the evidence was moderate for total VTE, symptomatic VTE, total DVT and total PE, and low for proximal DVT.We showed that fondaparinux increased major bleeding compared with both placebo and LWMH (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.44; 6659 participants; 8 studies; I = 0%; P = 0.0008; moderate-quality evidence; and RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.75; 12,501 participants; 11 studies; I = 24%; P = 0.008; high-quality evidence, respectively). All-cause mortality was not different between fondaparinux and placebo or LMWH (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.22; 6674 participants; 8 studies; I = 14%; P = 0.26; moderate-quality evidence; and RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22; 12,400 participants; 11 studies; I = 0%; P = 0.44; moderate-quality evidence, respectively).One study compared fondaparinux with variable and fixed (1 mg per day) doses of warfarin after elective hip or knee replacement surgery and showed no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between fondaparinux and both variable and fixed doses of warfarin. The quality of the evidence was very low. One small study compared fondaparinux with edoxaban in patients with severe renal impairment undergoing lower-limb orthopaedic surgery and reported no thromboembolic events, major bleeding events or deaths in either group. The quality of the evidence was very low. One small study compared fondaparinux with mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Results showed no difference in total VTE and total DVT between fondaparinux and mechanical thromboprophylaxis. This study reported no cases pertaining to the other outcomes of this review. The quality of the evidence was low.There were insufficient studies to permit meaningful conclusions for subgroups of clinical conditions other than orthopaedic surgery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high quality evidence shows that fondaparinux is effective for short-term prevention of VTE when compared with placebo. It can reduce total VTE, DVT, total PE and symptomatic VTE, and does not demonstrate a reduction in deaths compared with placebo. Low to moderate quality evidence shows that fondaparinux is more effective for short-term VTE prevention when compared with LMWH. It can reduce total VTE and total DVT and does not demonstrate a reduction in deaths when compared with LMWH. However, at the same time, moderate to high quality evidence shows that fondaparinux increases major bleeding when compared with placebo and LMWH. Therefore, when fondaparinux is chosen for the prevention of VTE, attention should be paid to the person's bleeding and thrombosis risks. Most data were derived from patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, the conclusion predominantly pertains to these patients. Data on fondaparinux for other clinical conditions are sparse.
静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)是一种常见疾病,可能会导致严重且危及生命的后果。血栓预防的标准方法是使用抗凝剂,如低分子量肝素(LMWH)或华法林。近年来,另一种抗凝剂——五糖,一种间接的Xa因子抑制剂,在临床试验中显示出良好的抗凝效果。有三种五糖可用:短效的磺达肝癸钠、长效的依达肝素和艾卓肝素。五糖引起肝素诱导的血小板减少症的情况较少,并且比普通肝素、LMWH和华法林的耐受性更好。然而,关于五糖与其他抗凝方法相比是优还是劣,尚未达成共识。
评估五糖与其他血栓栓塞预防方法(血栓预防)在需要抗凝治疗以预防静脉血栓栓塞症的人群中的效果。
Cochrane血管信息专家(CIS)检索了专业注册库(最后检索时间为2016年3月)和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL;2016年第2期)。CIS在试验数据库中搜索正在进行和未发表研究的详细信息。综述作者检索了拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库(LILACS)以及通过电子检索确定的相关研究和综述的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了关于任何类型五糖与其他抗凝方法(药物或机械方法)预防VTE的随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立选择试验,评估方法学质量,并在预先设计的表格中提取数据。
我们在本综述中纳入了25项研究,共有21004名参与者。所有研究均调查了磺达肝癸钠预防VTE的效果;没有研究调查依达肝素或艾卓肝素。研究纳入了接受腹部手术、胸外科手术、减肥手术或冠状动脉搭桥手术的参与者;急性病住院患者;需要严格或半严格固定的人群;以及患有浅静脉血栓形成的患者。大多数研究集中在骨科患者。由于研究之间的异质性以及少量事件导致的不精确性,我们降低了证据的质量。当将磺达肝癸钠与安慰剂进行比较时,我们发现磺达肝癸钠组的总VTE(风险比(RR)0.24,95%置信区间(CI)0.15至0.38;5717名参与者;8项研究;I² = 64%;P < 0.00001)、有症状VTE(RR 0.15,95% CI 0.06至0.36;6503名参与者;8项研究;I² = 0%;P < 0.0001)、总DVT(RR 0.25,95% CI 0.15至0.40;5715名参与者;8项研究;I² = 67%;P < 0.00001)、近端DVT(RR 0.12,95% CI 0.04至0.39;2746名参与者;7项研究;I² = 64%;P = 0.0004)和总肺栓塞(PE)(RR 0.16,95% CI 0.04至0.62;6412名参与者;8项研究;I² = 0%;P = 0.008)均较少。总VTE、总DVT和近端DVT的证据质量为中等,有症状VTE和总PE的证据质量为高。当将磺达肝癸钠与LMWH进行比较时,分析表明磺达肝癸钠可降低总VTE和DVT(RR 0.55,95% CI 0.42至0.73;9339名参与者;11项研究;I² = 64%;P < 0.0001;以及RR 0.54,95% CI 0.40至0.71;9356名参与者;10项研究;I² = 67%;P < 0.0001),并且显示出近端DVT有降低趋势(RR 0.58,95% CI 0.33至1.02;8361名参与者;9项研究;I² = 53%;P = 0.06)。有症状VTE(RR 1.03,95% CI 0.65至1.63;12240名参与者;9项研究;I² = 35%;P = 0.90)和总PE(RR 1.24,95% CI 0.65至2.34;12350名参与者;10项研究;I² = 0%;P = 0.51)表明磺达肝癸钠与LMWH之间没有差异。总VTE、有症状VTE、总DVT和总PE的证据质量为中等,近端DVT的证据质量为低。我们发现,与安慰剂和LWMH相比,磺达肝癸钠增加了大出血(RR 2.56,95% CI 1.48至4.44;6659名参与者;8项研究;I² = 0%;P = 0.0008;中等质量证据;以及RR 1.38,95% CI 1.09至1.75;12501名参与者;11项研究;I² = 24%;P = 0.008;高质量证据)。磺达肝癸钠与安慰剂或LMWH之间的全因死亡率没有差异(RR 0.76,95% CI 0.48至1.22;6674名参与者;8项研究;I² = 14%;P = 0.26;中等质量证据;以及RR 0.88,95% CI 0.63至1.22;12400名参与者;11项研究;I² = 0%;P = 0.44;中等质量证据)。一项研究比较了择期髋关节或膝关节置换手术后磺达肝癸钠与可变和固定(每日1毫克)剂量华法林的效果,结果显示磺达肝癸钠与可变和固定剂量华法林在主要和次要结局方面没有差异。证据质量非常低。一项小型研究比较了严重肾功能损害的下肢骨科手术患者中磺达肝癸钠与依度沙班的效果,结果显示两组均未发生血栓栓塞事件、大出血事件或死亡。证据质量非常低。一项小型研究比较了磺达肝癸钠与机械性血栓预防。结果显示磺达肝癸钠与机械性血栓预防在总VTE和总DVT方面没有差异。该研究未报告与本综述其他结局相关的病例。证据质量低。除骨科手术外,针对其他临床情况的亚组研究数量不足,无法得出有意义的结论。
中到高质量的证据表明,与安慰剂相比,磺达肝癸钠在短期预防VTE方面有效。它可以降低总VTE、DVT、总PE和有症状VTE,与安慰剂相比并未显示出死亡率降低。低到中等质量的证据表明,与LMWH相比,磺达肝癸钠在短期VTE预防方面更有效。它可以降低总VTE和总DVT,与LMWH相比并未显示出死亡率降低。然而,同时,中到高质量的证据表明,与安慰剂和LMWH相比,磺达肝癸钠会增加大出血。因此,当选择磺达肝癸钠预防VTE时,应注意个体的出血和血栓形成风险。大多数数据来自接受骨科手术的患者。因此,该结论主要适用于这些患者。关于磺达肝癸钠用于其他临床情况的数据较少。