Bhargah Agha, Narayana Gede S, Maliawan Rani Pi, Wirawan Hendy, Darma I Kss, Artha I Mjr, Manuaba Ida Bap
Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Udayana, Denpasar, Indonesia.
Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Prof. I.G.N.G. Ngoerah General Hospital, Denpasar, Indonesia.
Narra J. 2025 Apr;5(1):e1254. doi: 10.52225/narra.v5i1.1254. Epub 2025 Feb 3.
In patients with mechanical heart valves, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin are commonly used as bridging anticoagulation therapies to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events and major adverse cardiac events; however, the efficacy and safety of these therapies remain debatable. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and outcomes of LMWH and unfractionated heparin in patients with mechanical heart valve replacement undergoing non-cardiac surgery. This systematic literature review was conducted from January to June 2023, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search for related studies through PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library. Categorical variables were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, with relative risk (RR) as the effect size. Higgins was used to measure the heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed through funnel plots. Out of 814 potential studies, six studies (one randomized control trial and five prospective studies) were included. The analysis revealed no significant differences in thromboembolic event or valvular thrombosis (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.36-1.04; =0.07; χ=1.96; =0%), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.40-1.35; =0.32; χ=0.97; =0%), major bleeding (RR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.53-1.23; =0.33; χ=4.14; =0%), minor bleeding (RR: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.86-1.62; =0.31; χ=4.50; =11%), and thrombocytopenia (RR: 0.56; 95%CI: 0.20-1.59; =0.27; χ=0.85; =0%). The study highlights that LMWH and unfractionated heparin did not differ significantly when used as bridging anticoagulant therapy for non-cardiac surgery in mechanical heart valve patients.
在接受机械心脏瓣膜置换术的患者中,低分子量肝素(LMWH)和普通肝素通常用作桥接抗凝治疗,以降低血栓栓塞事件和主要不良心脏事件的风险;然而,这些治疗方法的疗效和安全性仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较LMWH和普通肝素在接受非心脏手术的机械心脏瓣膜置换患者中的安全性和结局。本系统文献综述于2023年1月至6月进行,遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,通过PubMed、ScienceDirect和Cochrane图书馆检索相关研究。分类变量采用Mantel-Haenszel随机效应模型进行分析,效应量为相对风险(RR)。使用Higgins测量异质性,并通过漏斗图评估发表偏倚。在814项潜在研究中,纳入了6项研究(1项随机对照试验和5项前瞻性研究)。分析显示,在血栓栓塞事件或瓣膜血栓形成(RR:0.61;95%CI:0.36-1.04;P=0.07;χ²=1.96;I²=0%)、全因死亡率(RR:0.73;95%CI:0.40-1.35;P=0.32;χ²=0.97;I²=0%)、大出血(RR:0.81;95%CI:0.53-1.23;P=0.33;χ²=4.14;I²=0%)、小出血(RR:1.18;95%CI:0.86-1.62;P=0.31;χ²=4.50;I²=11%)和血小板减少症(RR:0.56;95%CI:0.20-1.59;P=0.27;χ²=0.85;I²=0%)方面,两者无显著差异。该研究强调,在机械心脏瓣膜患者非心脏手术的桥接抗凝治疗中,LMWH和普通肝素没有显著差异。