Department of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Rehabilitation Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Department of Respiratory and Infections Medicine, Beijing You An Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Nov 24;100(47):e27861. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027861.
To better inform efforts to treat and control the current outbreak with effective anticoagulant treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 patients.
We searched Cochrane Library, Pubmed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCIEXPANDED, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CNKI (Chinese Database), WanFang (Chinese Database), CBM (Chinese Database), VIP (Chinese Database) for studies published from November 1, 2019 to October 1, 2020, and we searched references of identified articles. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality. A random-effects model was used to pool results. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot.
Fourteen studies involving 7681 patients were included. We meta-analyzed the bleeding, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism risk between no anticoagulation and prophylactic anticoagulation, and found no significant difference. The same trend occurred in the comparison between with and without anticoagulation. However, when compared with no anticoagulation, both prophylactic anticoagulation (odd ratio [OR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.93) and therapeutic anticoagulation (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80-1.05) had lower risk of mortality. Furthermore, the risk of overall bleeding among patients with therapeutic anticoagulation was 3.11 times (95% CI: 2.29-4.24) than that of patients with prophylactic anticoagulation. On the contrary, therapeutic anticoagulation had lower risk of deep vein thrombosis than prophylactic anticoagulation (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19-0.63).
Among coronavirus disease 2019 patients, preventive and therapeutic anticoagulation were more beneficial than no anticoagulation for reducing mortality rate. The result will inform healthcare providers and public health policy makers in efforts to treat and control the current outbreak.
为了更好地利用有效的抗凝治疗策略治疗和控制 2019 冠状病毒病患者,我们进行了此项研究。
我们检索了 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed、EMBASE、MEDLINE、科学引文索引扩展版、Web of Science、谷歌学术、中国知网(CNKI)、万方(WanFang)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、维普(VIP),检索时间从 2019 年 11 月 1 日至 2020 年 10 月 1 日,同时还检索了已确定文章的参考文献。我们对研究进行了方法学质量评价,并使用随机效应模型对结果进行了合并。使用 I2 评估异质性,使用漏斗图评估发表偏倚。
共纳入 14 项研究,涉及 7681 例患者。我们对无抗凝治疗与预防性抗凝治疗之间的出血、深静脉血栓形成和肺栓塞风险进行了荟萃分析,结果显示两者之间无显著差异。同样,有抗凝治疗与无抗凝治疗之间也存在相同的趋势。然而,与无抗凝治疗相比,预防性抗凝治疗(比值比 [OR] = 0.80,95%置信区间 [CI]:0.69-0.93)和治疗性抗凝治疗(OR = 0.91,95%CI:0.80-1.05)的死亡率均较低。此外,治疗性抗凝治疗患者的总出血风险是预防性抗凝治疗患者的 3.11 倍(95%CI:2.29-4.24)。相反,治疗性抗凝治疗发生深静脉血栓形成的风险低于预防性抗凝治疗(OR = 0.34,95%CI:0.19-0.63)。
在 2019 冠状病毒病患者中,预防和治疗性抗凝治疗比不抗凝治疗更有利于降低死亡率。该结果将为医疗保健提供者和公共卫生政策制定者提供信息,以努力治疗和控制当前的疫情。