These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis for medically ill patients. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
    Author: Dentali F, Mumoli N, Prisco D, Fontanella A, Di Minno MN.
    Journal: Thromb Haemost; 2017 Feb 28; 117(3):606-617. PubMed ID: 28078350.
    Abstract:
    Compelling evidence suggests that the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) persists after hospital discharge in acutely-ill medical patients. However, no studies consistently supported the routine use of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis (ET) in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of ET in acutely-ill medical patients. Efficacy outcome was defined by the prevention of symptomatic DVT, PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE) and VTE-related mortality. Safety outcome was the occurrence of major bleeding (MB) and fatal bleeding (FB). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) were calculated for each outcome using a random effects model. Four RCTs for a total of 28,105 acutely-ill medical patients were included. ET was associated with a significantly lower risk of DVT (0.3 % vs 0.6 %, OR 0.504, 95 %CI: 0.287-0.885) and VTE (0.5 % vs 1.0 %, OR: 0.544, 95 %CI: 0.297-0.997); a non-significantly lower risk of PE (0.3 % vs 0.4 %, OR 0.633, 95 %CI: 0.388-1.034) and of VTE-related mortality (0.2 % vs 0.3 %, OR 0.687, 95 %CI: 0.445-1.059) and with a significantly higher risk of MB (0.8 % vs 0.4 %, OR 2.095, 95 %CI: 1.333-3.295). No difference in FB was found (0.06 % vs 0.03 %, OR 1.79, 95 %CI: 0.384-8.325). The risk benefit analysis showed that the NNT for DVT was 339, for VTE was 239, and the NNH for MB was 247. Results of our meta-analyses focused on clinical important outcomes did not support a general use of antithrombotic prophylaxis beyond the period of hospitalization in acutely-ill medical patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]