Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 86(4): 2098-2104, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38576935

ABSTRACT

Background: Cerebral venous thromboembolism (CVT) poses a significant risk of venous infarction and haemorrhage, which can lead to neurological deficits and, in severe cases, even death. The optimal treatment regimen for patients with CVT remains unclear. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS), and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with CVT. All-site venous thromboembolism (VTE), risk of clinically relevant non-major bleeding, incidence of partial recanalization, complete recanalization and major haemorrhage were among outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results: The analysis included 1 RCT and 3 observational studies containing 211 patients. Compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), rivaroxaban did not significantly decrease the all-site VTE [RR 0.31 (95% CI 0.01, 8.43); P=0.49, I2=0%]. Compared with VKAs, patients on rivaroxaban did not show a significantly reduced risk of recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis. In terms of incidence of partial recanalization, there was no discernible difference between rivaroxaban and VKAs [RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.66, 1.22); P=0.49, I2=0%]. There was no discernible difference in incidence of complete recanalization [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.32, 3.03); P=0.97, I2=28%] and incidence of major haemorrhage [RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.01, 4.54); P=0.30]. Conclusion: Rivaroxaban was found to have similar efficacy to VKAs. Due to its lower risk of severe bleeding and no need for INR monitoring, rivaroxaban may be a preferable treatment option for CVT.

2.
Cureus ; 15(6): e40211, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37435247

ABSTRACT

This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and undergoing dialysis. This study was conducted per the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, to identify relevant studies comparing clopidogrel and ticagrelor in patients undergoing dialysis. To ensure the inclusion of all relevant articles, a combination of the following keywords, along with medical subject heading (MeSH) terms, was used: "clopidogrel," "ticagrelor," "acute coronary syndrome," and "dialysis." The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The occurrence of any bleeding events (including major and nonmajor bleeding events) and major bleeding events was chosen as the safety endpoints. A total of four studies were included in the pooled analysis. The pooled sample size was 5,417 patients, including 892 in the ticagrelor group and 4525 in the clopidogrel group. The findings indicate that ticagrelor, compared to clopidogrel, is associated with a significantly higher risk of MACEs, all-cause death, and major bleeding events. The findings suggest that clopidogrel may be a better choice for individuals with ACS undergoing dialysis due to its lower risk of MACE, all-cause death, and major bleeding events compared to ticagrelor.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL