首页> 外文期刊>The journal of trauma and acute care surgery >Safety and efficacy of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis following blunt head injury: A systematic review
【24h】

Safety and efficacy of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis following blunt head injury: A systematic review

机译:钝性颅脑损伤后药物性血栓预防的安全性和有效性:系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Patients with blunt head injury are at high risk of venous thromboembolism. However, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (PTP) may cause progression of intracranial hemorrhage, and clinicians must often weigh up the risks and benefits. This review aimed to determine whether adding PTP to mechanical prophylaxis confers net benefit or harm and the optimal timing, dose, and agent for PTP in patients with blunt head injury. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and www.clinicaltrials.gov on April 24, 2013, to identify controlled studies and ongoing trials that assessed the efficacy or safety of thromboprophylaxis interventions in the early management of head-injured patients. Studies were classified based on types of interventions and comparisons, and the quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We intended to undertake a meta-analysis if studies were sufficiently similar. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including four randomized controlled trials. At least two randomized controlled trials were at high risk of bias owing to inadequate randomization and concealment of allocation, and observational studies were potentially confounded by substantial differences between comparison groups. Heterogeneity of included studies precluded meta-analysis. Results were mixed, with some studies supporting and others refuting addition of PTP to mechanical interventions. Little evidence was available about dose or choice of agent. The safety and efficacy of early PTP in patients without early progression of hemorrhage is unclear. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence to guide thromboprophylaxis in patients with blunt head injury. Standardized definitions and outcome measurements would facilitate comparison of outcomes across future studies. Studies in mixed populations should report head-injured specific subgroup data. Future randomized controlled trials should investigate the efficacy and safety of early pharmacologic prophylaxis in addition to mechanical intervention.
机译:背景:钝性颅脑损伤患者存在静脉血栓栓塞的高风险。但是,药理性血栓预防(PTP)可能会导致颅内出血的进展,因此临床医生必须经常权衡其风险和益处。这篇综述旨在确定在机械性预防中添加PTP是否会带来净收益或损害,以及钝性颅脑损伤患者中PTP的最佳时机,剂量和药物。方法:我们于2013年4月24日搜索了MEDLINE,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆对照试验中心登记册(CENTRAL)和www.clinicaltrials.gov,以鉴定对照研究和正在进行的试验,以评估血栓预防干预措施的有效性或安全性。颅脑损伤患者的早期治疗。根据干预类型和比较对研究进行分类,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表对纳入研究的质量进行评估。如果研究足够相似,我们打算进行荟萃分析。结果:十六项研究符合纳入标准,包括四项随机对照试验。至少有两项随机对照试验由于不充分的随机化和分配的隐瞒而处于偏倚的高风险中,观察性研究可能因比较组之间的实质性差异而混淆。纳入研究的异质性阻止了荟萃分析。结果好坏参半,有些研究支持,另一些则反对在机械干预中增加PTP。关于剂量或药剂选择的证据很少。没有早期出血进展的患者中早期PTP的安全性和疗效尚不清楚。结论:目前尚无足够的证据指导钝性颅脑损伤患者的血栓预防。标准化的定义和结果测量将有助于比较未来研究的结果。混合人群的研究应报告头部受伤的特定亚组数据。未来的随机对照试验除了机械干预外,还应研究早期药物预防的功效和安全性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号