He Hua, Ke Bing-Bing, Li Yan, Han Fu-Sheng, Li Xiaodong, Zeng Yu-Jie
Department of Emergency Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Anzhen Road Second, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China.
Department of Epidemiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing, 100029, China.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2017 Oct;50(1):65-83. doi: 10.1007/s10840-017-0280-4. Epub 2017 Aug 25.
Network meta-analysis (NMA) has advantages including being able to simultaneously compare and rank multiple treatments over traditional meta-analysis. We evaluated by a NMA the optimal antithrombotic strategy during the perioperative period of implantation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).
We performed a network meta-analysis of observational studies (cohort and case-control studies). The eligible studies tested the following antithrombotic therapy during the CIED placement: aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and heparin bridging.
Thirty-one observational studies with 119 study arms were included (41,174 patients receiving long-term antithrombotic therapy; median age, 72.6 years; 70.1% males; median follow-up, 3.6 years). Aspirin (4.26 [2.88-7.22]), warfarin (3.37 [2.17-5.23]), and clopidogrel (3.30 [1.49-5.88]) reduced the risk of bleeding as compared with heparin bridging, and there was no significance difference between continued NOACs and heparin bridging (0.67 [0.21-2.18]). The comparison of commonly used protocols in the management of anticoagulant therapy revealed that continued warfarin (0.38 [0.20-0.74]), continued NOACs (0.19 [0.04-0.89]), and heparin bridging therapy (0.01 [0.05-0.21]) increased the risk of bleeding as compared that of control, and continued warfarin (3.74 [1.96-7.16]), interrupted warfarin (4.89 [2.20-10.88]), and interrupted NOACs (12.5 [1.25-100]) reduced the risk of bleeding compared with that of heparin bridging.
Among various antithrombotic drugs, aspirin had the lowest bleeding risk, followed by warfarin, clopidogrel and NOACs, and heparin, with the greatest bleeding risk. NOACs therapy appears safe and effective, and interrupted NOACs may be the optimal anticoagulation protocol for use during the perioperative period of CIED implantation.
与传统荟萃分析相比,网状荟萃分析(NMA)具有能够同时比较和排序多种治疗方法的优势。我们通过网状荟萃分析评估了心血管植入式电子设备(CIED)植入围手术期的最佳抗栓策略。
我们对观察性研究(队列研究和病例对照研究)进行了网状荟萃分析。纳入的研究在CIED植入期间测试了以下抗栓治疗:阿司匹林、氯吡格雷、华法林、新型口服抗凝药(NOACs)和肝素桥接。
纳入了31项观察性研究,共119个研究组(41174例接受长期抗栓治疗的患者;中位年龄72.6岁;男性占70.1%;中位随访时间3.6年)。与肝素桥接相比,阿司匹林(4.26[2.88 - 7.22])、华法林(3.37[2.17 - 5.23])和氯吡格雷(3.30[1.49 - 5.88])降低了出血风险,持续使用NOACs与肝素桥接之间无显著差异(0.67[0.21 - 2.18])。抗凝治疗常用方案的比较显示,与对照组相比,持续使用华法林(0.3[0.20 - 0.74])、持续使用NOACs(0.19[0.04 - 0.89])和肝素桥接治疗(0.01[0.05 - 0.21])增加了出血风险,与肝素桥接相比,持续使用华法林(3.74[1.96 - 7.16])、中断使用华法林(4.89[2.20 - 10.88])和中断使用NOACs(12.5[1.25 - 100])降低了出血风险。
在各种抗栓药物中,阿司匹林出血风险最低,其次是华法林、氯吡格雷和NOACs,肝素出血风险最高。NOACs治疗似乎安全有效,中断使用NOACs可能是CIED植入围手术期的最佳抗凝方案。