首页> 外文期刊>Europace: European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology >Safety and efficacy of interrupted dabigatran for peri-procedural anticoagulation in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Safety and efficacy of interrupted dabigatran for peri-procedural anticoagulation in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:中断达比加群用于房颤导管消融术中抗凝的安全性和有效性:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

AimsTo examine the safety (defined as bleeding risk) and efficacy (defined as prevention of thromboembolic events) of interrupted dabigatran for peri-procedural anticoagulation in catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) in comparison with warfarin.Methods and resultsReviewers independently searched literature databases from January 2010 through April 2013 for studies comparing the safety and efficacy of dabigatran and warfarin in CA of AF and extracted pre-defined data. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool data of bleeding and thromboembolism outcomes into random and fixed effect model meta-analyses, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs), and risk difference (RD) analysis when studies reported no events in either arm, were used to generate an overall effect estimate of both outcomes. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed by contour funnel plot and the I2 test, respectively. Nine citations, including 3036 patients (1073 dabigatran), met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference between interrupted dabigatran and warfarin therapy in CA of AF in occurrence of bleeding [dabigatran 58 (5.4%), warfarin 103 (5.2%); OR 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.45); χ2 = 13.03 - P = 0.11; I2 = 39%] or thromboembolism [dabigatran 5 (0.4%), warfarin 2 (0.1%); OR 2.15 (95% CI - 0.58-7.98); χ2 = 2.14, P = 0.54; I2 = 0%; RD 0.00 (95% CI - 0.00 to 0.01); χ2 = 3.37, P = 0.81; I2 = 0%]. Analysis of pre-defined subgroups (published articles vs. abstracts), sensitivity analyses (interrupted warfarin, USA studies, and Japanese studies) and fixed effect model analyses showed similar results. Heterogeneity was mild in the bleeding outcome analysis and zero in thromboembolism. There was no evidence of publication bias in either meta-analysis.ConclusionMeta-analysis of currently available studies showed no significant difference in bleeding and thromboembolism between interrupted dabigatran and warfarin therapy in CA of AF. Dabigatran appears to be safe and effective for peri-procedural anticoagulation in CA of AF.
机译:目的与华法林相比,比较中断的达比加群在房颤(AF)导管消融(CA)中进行围手术期抗凝的安全性(定义为出血风险)和疗效(定义为预防血栓栓塞事件)方法和结果文献数据库从2010年1月至2013年4月比较了达比加群和华法林在房颤CA中的安全性和有效性,并提取了预先定义的数据。使用Mantel-Haenszel方法将出血和血栓栓塞结局的数据分别汇总到随机和固定效应模型的荟萃分析中。当研究报告任何一方均未发生任何事件时,使用赔率(OR)和风险差异(RD)分析来生成两种结果的总体效果估计。通过轮廓漏斗图和I2检验分别评估出版偏倚和异质性。包括3036例患者(1073例达比加群)在内的9篇文献符合入选标准。房颤CA中断达比加群和华法林治疗之间出血的发生率没有显着差异[达比加群58(5.4%),华法林103(5.2%);或0.92(95%置信区间(CI)0.55-1.45); χ2= 13.03-P = 0.11; I2 = 39%]或血栓栓塞[达比加群5(0.4%),华法林2(0.1%);或2.15(95%CI-0.58-7.98); χ2= 2.14,P = 0.54; I2 = 0%; RD 0.00(95%CI-0.00至0.01); χ2= 3.37,P = 0.81; I2 = 0%]。预定义亚组的分析(已发表文章或摘要),敏感性分析(华法林中断,美国研究和日本研究)和固定效应模型分析显示了相似的结果。出血结局分析的异质性较轻,血栓栓塞为零。两种荟萃分析均没有证据显示出版物存在偏倚。结论对现有研究的Meta分析表明,在AF房颤患者中,中断达比加群和华法林治疗之间在出血和血栓栓塞方面无显着差异。达比加群似乎对房颤CA围手术期抗凝是安全有效的。

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