Robertson Lindsay, Yeoh Su Ern, Ramli Ahmad
Department of Vascular Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE7 7DN.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 15;12(12):CD011088. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011088.pub2.
Currently, little evidence is available on the length and type of anticoagulation used for extended treatment for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with unprovoked VTE who have completed initial oral anticoagulation therapy.
To compare the efficacy and safety of available oral therapeutic options (aspirin, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)) for extended thromboprophylaxis in adults with a first unprovoked VTE, to prevent VTE recurrence after completion of an acceptable initial oral anticoagulant treatment period, as defined in individual studies.
For this review, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (March 2017) as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). We also searched trials registries (March 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles.
We included randomised controlled trials in which patients with a first, symptomatic, objectively confirmed, unprovoked VTE, who had been initially treated with anticoagulants, were randomised to extended prophylaxis (vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), antiplatelet agents, or DOACs) versus no prophylaxis or placebo. We also included trials that compared one type of extended prophylaxis versus another type of extended prophylaxis.
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion.
Six studies with a combined total of 3436 participants met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared extended prophylaxis versus placebo: three compared warfarin versus placebo, and two compared aspirin versus placebo. One study compared one type of extended prophylaxis (rivaroxaban) versus another type of extended prophylaxis (aspirin). For extended prophylaxis versus placebo, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and all-cause mortality to moderate owing to concerns arising from risks of selection and performance bias in individual studies. For all other outcomes in this review, we downgraded the quality of the evidence to low owing to concerns arising from risk of bias for the studies stated above, combined with concerns over imprecision. For extended prophylaxis versus other extended prophylaxis, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and major bleeding to moderate owing to concerns over imprecision. Risk of bias in the individual study was low.Meta-analysis showed that extended prophylaxis was no more effective than placebo in preventing VTE-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 6.98; 1862 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.98; low-quality evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.03; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.85; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.86; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.57; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 5.33; 1672 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.30; low-quality evidence), stroke (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.46; 1224 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.80; low-quality evidence), or myocardial infarction (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87; 1495 participants; 3 studies; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence).One study showed that the novel oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban was associated with fewer recurrent VTEs than aspirin (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.54; 1389 participants; P = 0.0001; moderate-quality evidence). Data show no clear differences in the incidence of major bleeding between rivaroxaban and aspirin (OR 3.06, 95% CI 0.37 to 25.51; 1389 participants; P = 0.30; moderate-quality evidence) nor in the incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.94; 1389 participants; 1 study; P = 0.69; moderate-quality evidence). Data on VTE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction were not yet available for participants with unprovoked VTE and will be incorporated in future versions of the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is currently insufficient to permit definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis in prevention of recurrent VTE after initial oral anticoagulation therapy among participants with unprovoked VTE. Additional good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be reached.
目前,关于在完成初始口服抗凝治疗的不明原因静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)患者中,用于预防VTE复发的延长治疗的抗凝时长及类型,几乎没有证据。
比较阿司匹林、华法林、直接口服抗凝剂(DOACs)等口服治疗方案在首次发生不明原因VTE的成人中进行延长血栓预防的疗效和安全性,以预防在个体研究中定义的可接受的初始口服抗凝治疗期结束后的VTE复发。
对于本综述,Cochrane血管信息专家(CIS)检索了专业注册库(2017年3月)以及Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL;2017年第2期)。我们还检索了试验注册库(2017年3月)以及相关文章的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了随机对照试验,其中首次发生有症状、经客观证实的不明原因VTE且最初接受抗凝治疗的患者被随机分配至延长预防组(维生素K拮抗剂(VKAs)、抗血小板药物或DOACs)与不预防组或安慰剂组。我们还纳入了比较一种延长预防类型与另一种延长预防类型的试验。
两位综述作者独立选择研究、评估质量并提取数据。我们通过讨论解决分歧。
六项总计3436名参与者的研究符合纳入标准。五项研究比较了延长预防与安慰剂:三项比较了华法林与安慰剂,两项比较了阿司匹林与安慰剂。一项研究比较了一种延长预防类型(利伐沙班)与另一种延长预防类型(阿司匹林)。对于延长预防与安慰剂的比较,由于个体研究中存在选择和实施偏倚风险,我们将复发性VTE和全因死亡率的证据质量降为中等。对于本综述中的所有其他结局,由于上述研究存在偏倚风险,再加上存在不精确性问题,我们将证据质量降为低等。对于延长预防与其他延长预防的比较,由于存在不精确性问题,我们将复发性VTE和大出血的证据质量降为中等。个体研究中的偏倚风险较低。荟萃分析表明,延长预防在预防VTE相关死亡率(比值比(OR)0.98,95%置信区间(CI)0.14至6.98;1862名参与者;4项研究;P = 0.98;低质量证据)、复发性VTE(OR 0.63,95%CI 0.38至1.03;2043名参与者;5项研究;P = 0.07;中等质量证据)、大出血(OR 1.84,95%CI 0.87至3.85;2043名参与者;