ABSTRACT
Background: The optimal treatment regimen for patients with Hughes syndrome remains unclear. Therefore, the authors sought to compare the outcomes of warfarin vs. factor Xa inhibitors in patients with Hughes syndrome. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 8 efficacy and safety of warfarin and factor Xa inhibitors in patients with Hughes syndrome. Recurrent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, stroke, adverse reactions, and bleeding were among 10 outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate 11 relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results: The analysis included 625 patients from four RCTs and one post-hoc analysis. Meta-analysis showed a statistically non-significant difference between factor Xa inhibitors and warfarin in the recurrent thrombosis risk (arterial or venous) [RR 2.77 (95%, CI 0.79, 9.65); P=0.11, I2=50%]. Consistent results were revealed among patients with a previous history of arterial thrombosis [RR 2.76 (95% CI 0.93, 8.16); P=0.75, I2=0%], venous thrombosis [RR 1.71 (95% CI 0.60, 4.84); P=0.31, I2=15%] and patients who were triple antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) positive [RR 4.12 (95% CI 0.46, 37.10); 21 P=0.21, I2=58%]. Factor Xa inhibitors were significantly associated with an increased risk of stroke [RR 8.51 (95% CI 2.35, 13.82); P=0.47, I2=0%]. Conclusion: Factor Xa inhibitors exhibited an increased risk of stroke among patients with Hughes syndrome. In addition, although not significant, the higher RRs among patients on factor Xa inhibitors may indicate a higher risk of thrombotic events associated with factor Xa inhibitors.
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.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation with diabetes face increased stroke and cardiovascular risks. This study compares factor Xa inhibitors and warfarin using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for RCTs comparing the risk of efficacy and safety of any factor Xa inhibitors with dose-adjusted warfarin by diabetes status. Incidence of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, all-cause mortality, risk of hemorrhagic stroke, and myocardial infarction were among the outcomes of interest. A generic inverse-weighted random-effects model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs). Results: After applying exclusion criteria, four RCTs containing 19 818 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with warfarin, meta-analysis showed statistically significant reduction in incidence of stroke/systemic embolism (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.69-0.92]; P=0.002), intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.49 [95% CI 0.37-0.65]; P<0.001), and risk of hemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.37 [95% CI 0.20-0.66]; P=0.001) in patients on factor Xa inhibitors. However, there was no discernible difference between two treatment arms in incidence of major bleeding (HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.84-1.04]; P=0.19), ischemic stroke (risk ratio (RR) 0.90 [95% CI 0.73-1.12; P=0.34), myocardial infarction (RR 0.88 [95% CI 0.67-1.15]; P=0.35), and all-cause mortality (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.79-1.01]; P=0.06). Conclusion: Factor Xa inhibitors show a favorable balance between efficacy and safety compared with warfarin, which is consistent across a wide range of patients with atrial fibrillation known to be at high risk for both ischemic and bleeding events.
ABSTRACT
Background: Optimal treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. Therefore, the authors sought to compare the outcomes of ablation therapy versus pharmacological regimens in patients with AF. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes between of ablation and pharmacological therapy in patients with AF. Stroke, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, heart failure (HF), and bleeding 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 ~200 000 patients from 4 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant reduction in stroke among patients on ablation therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI (0.43, 0.60), P<0.00001, I2=10%], all-cause mortality [HR 0.64, 95% CI (0.45, 0.93), P=0.02, I2=58%], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.35, 95% CI (0.25, 0.50), P<0.0001, I2=0%], and HF [HR 0.40, 95% CI (0.31, 0.53), P<0.00001, I2=30%]. However, no significant difference was revealed in the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization [HR 1.04, 95% CI (0.88, 1.23), P=0.66, I2=89%] and bleeding [HR 1.11, 95% CI (0.97, 1.27), P=0.13, I2=0%]. Conclusion: Ablation significantly reduces the risk of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF in AF patients, compared with medical therapy alone, supporting its use in clinical practice.
