Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018 May;125:12-18. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.02.010. Epub 2018 Mar 2.
There is a paucity of data available on hospitalization and length of stay (LOS) for different anticoagulant therapies. We sought to compare and summarize admission rates and LOS, and describe the frequency of reporting these two outcomes in randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing different anticoagulant therapies for venous thromboembolism (VTE).
A literature search was conducted from inception to August 15, 2016 on RCTs of anticoagulant therapy for patients with VTE. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Meta-analyses were conducted for admission rates and LOS.
A total of 4064 articles were identified. There were 74 articles of 70 studies included in the analysis. Hospitalization rates and LOS were reported in 13 (18.6%) and 12 (17.1%) of the 70 included studies, respectively. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)-treated patients were 33.0% less likely to be admitted to hospitals compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI [0.58, 0.78]). The mean difference in LOS between LMWH and UFH was 2.54 days in favor of LMWH (95% CI [-4.94, -0.14]). Compared to parenteral therapy, using rivaroxaban was associated with a lower admission rate for a difference of 1.4-5.1% in VTE, 2.5% in DVT and 0.2% in PE. The LOS of patients receiving rivaroxaban was significant shorter than the LOS in parenteral therapy group for a difference of 1-5 days in VTE, 3 days in DVT and 1 day in PE.
Admission rates were lower and LOS was shorter using LMWH compared to UFH and oral therapy compared to parenteral therapy for acute VTE treatment in RCTs, based on limited eligible RCTs. These crucial clinically relevant outcomes are underreported in the existing VTE clinical trials.
关于不同抗凝治疗方案的住院和住院时间(LOS)的数据很少。我们旨在比较和总结不同抗凝治疗方案治疗静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)的住院率和 LOS,并描述比较不同抗凝治疗方案的随机对照试验(RCT)中报告这两种结局的频率。
从研究开始到 2016 年 8 月 15 日,对接受抗凝治疗的 VTE 患者的 RCT 进行了文献检索。两名评审员分别进行了研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险分析。对住院率和 LOS 进行了荟萃分析。
共确定了 4064 篇文章。纳入分析的 70 项研究中有 74 篇文章。13 项(18.6%)和 12 项(17.1%)研究报告了住院率和 LOS。与未分级肝素(UFH)相比,低分子肝素(LMWH)治疗的患者住院的可能性低 33.0%(RR=0.67,95%CI[0.58,0.78])。LMWH 与 UFH 之间 LOS 的平均差异有利于 LMWH 为 2.54 天(95%CI[-4.94,-0.14])。与胃肠外治疗相比,使用利伐沙班的静脉血栓栓塞症、深静脉血栓形成和肺栓塞的住院率分别低 1.4-5.1%、2.5%和 0.2%。利伐沙班组的 LOS 显著短于胃肠外治疗组,静脉血栓栓塞症、深静脉血栓形成和肺栓塞的差异分别为 1-5 天、3 天和 1 天。
基于有限的合格 RCT,与 UFH 相比,LMWH 用于急性 VTE 治疗的住院率更低,LOS 更短,与胃肠外治疗相比,口服治疗的住院率更低,LOS 更短。这些关键的临床相关结局在现有的 VTE 临床试验中报告不足。