Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
West China Medical School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
World J Urol. 2019 Jul;37(7):1377-1387. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2530-1. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
The necessity to cease anticoagulation before photoselective vaporization (PVP) surgery remains nonconsensual. We aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of PVP among high-risk benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients on or off anticoagulation.
We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). 2299 patients from 11 studies were eventually included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed to assess the quality and risk of bias of each study. All statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager v.5.3 software.
Ten parameters (operation time, laser time, blood transfusion, urethral stricture, urinary tract infection, reoperation, dysuria, capsule perforation, catheterization time, and re-catheterization) from patients on or off anticoagulant therapy were collected. The patients without anticoagulants performed better at catheterization time [MD - 0.54, 95% CI (- 0.82, - 0.26), P = 0.96, I = 0] with a reduction of 0.54 day than those on anticoagulants. Significant statistical difference was not observed from other parameters. Subgroup analysis, grouped by the power output of PVP systems (80 W, 120 W and 180 W), consistently showed no statistical significant difference except at catheterization time in the 180-W PVP subgroup.
PVP, a safe and effective option for high-risk BPH patients, work comparably regardless of anticoagulant therapy, despite non-anticoagulant patients have shorter catheterization time. It is implied that the use of anticoagulants might be unnecessary to stop for high-risk BPH patients undergoing PVP for the sake of safety, which certainly requires further investigations to confirm.
在进行光选择性前列腺汽化术(PVP)之前停止抗凝治疗的必要性仍存在争议。我们旨在评估高风险良性前列腺增生(BPH)患者在抗凝或不抗凝的情况下行 PVP 的疗效和安全性。
我们系统地检索了 Pubmed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)。最终纳入了来自 11 项研究的 2299 名患者。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)评估每个研究的质量和偏倚风险。所有统计分析均采用 Review Manager v.5.3 软件进行。
收集了接受抗凝或不接受抗凝治疗的患者的 10 个参数(手术时间、激光时间、输血、尿道狭窄、尿路感染、再次手术、排尿困难、包膜穿孔、导尿管留置时间和再次导尿)。未接受抗凝治疗的患者在导尿管留置时间上表现更好[MD -0.54,95%CI(-0.82,-0.26),P=0.96,I=0],比接受抗凝治疗的患者减少 0.54 天。其他参数未观察到统计学差异。亚组分析按 PVP 系统功率输出(80W、120W 和 180W)分组,除了 180W PVP 亚组的导尿管留置时间外,其他参数均未显示统计学差异。
PVP 是治疗高危 BPH 患者的一种安全有效的选择,无论是否接受抗凝治疗,效果相当,尽管非抗凝患者的导尿管留置时间更短。这表明,为了安全起见,对于接受 PVP 治疗的高危 BPH 患者,可能不需要停止使用抗凝剂,这当然需要进一步的研究来证实。