Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bristol, Bath and Weston Vascular Network, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Br J Surg. 2020 Jan;107(1):20-32. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11384. Epub 2019 Dec 6.
The literature on antiplatelet therapy for peripheral artery disease has historically been summarized inconsistently, leading to conflict between international guidelines. An umbrella review and meta-analysis was performed to summarize the literature, allow assessment of competing safety risks and clinical benefits, and identify weak areas for future research.
MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until January 2019. All meta-analyses of antiplatelet therapy in peripheral artery disease were included. Quality was assessed using AMSTAR scores, and GRADE analysis was used to quantify the strength of evidence. Data were pooled using random-effects models.
Twenty-eight meta-analyses were included. Thirty-three clinical outcomes and 41 antiplatelet comparisons in 72 181 patients were analysed. High-quality evidence showed that antiplatelet monotherapy reduced non-fatal strokes (3 (95 per cent c.i. 0 to 6) fewer per 1000 patients), In symptomatic patients, it reduced cardiovascular deaths (8 (0 to 16) fewer per 1000 patients), but increased the risk of major bleeding (7 (3 to 14) more events per 1000). In asymptomatic patients, monotherapy reduced non-fatal strokes (5 (0 to 8) fewer per 1000), but had no other clinical benefit. Dual antiplatelet therapy caused more major bleeding after intervention than monotherapy (37 (8 to 102) more events per 1000), with very low-quality evidence of improved endovascular patency (risk ratio 4·00, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 17·68).
Antiplatelet monotherapy has minimal clinical benefit for asymptomatic peripheral artery disease, and limited benefit for symptomatic disease, with a clear risk of major bleeding. There is a lack of evidence to guide antiplatelet prescribing after peripheral endovascular intervention.
外周动脉疾病的抗血小板治疗文献既往的总结方式不一致,导致国际指南之间存在冲突。我们进行了一项伞式综述和荟萃分析,以总结文献,评估相互竞争的安全风险和临床获益,并确定未来研究的薄弱领域。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、DARE、PROSPERO 和 Cochrane 数据库,检索时间从建库至 2019 年 1 月。纳入了所有外周动脉疾病抗血小板治疗的荟萃分析。使用 AMSTAR 评分评估质量,并使用 GRADE 分析来量化证据的强度。使用随机效应模型对数据进行汇总。
共纳入 28 项荟萃分析。分析了 72181 例患者的 33 项临床结局和 41 项抗血小板药物比较。高质量证据表明,抗血小板单药治疗可减少非致死性卒中(每 1000 例患者减少 3(95%可信区间 0 至 6)例),在有症状患者中,减少心血管死亡(每 1000 例患者减少 8(0 至 16)例),但增加大出血风险(每 1000 例患者增加 7(3 至 14)例)。在无症状患者中,单药治疗可减少非致死性卒中(每 1000 例患者减少 5(0 至 8)例),但无其他临床获益。与单药治疗相比,双重抗血小板治疗在介入治疗后引起更多的大出血(每 1000 例患者增加 37(8 至 102)例),但经证实血管内通畅率有改善(风险比 4.00,95%可信区间 0.91 至 17.68),证据质量非常低。
抗血小板单药治疗对无症状外周动脉疾病仅有最小的临床获益,对有症状疾病的获益有限,且大出血风险明确。对于外周血管腔内介入治疗后的抗血小板药物处方,目前尚无足够的证据来指导。