Efficacy and Safety of Warfarin VS. Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure and Sinus Rhythm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron YL. Liew ◽  
John W. Eikelboom ◽  
Stuart J. Connolly ◽  
Martin O' Donnell ◽  
Robert G. Hart
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systolic Heart Failure ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure in Sinus Rhythm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies

TH Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
pp. e383-e392
Author(s):  
Marie H. Nygaard ◽  
Anne-Mette Hvas ◽  
Erik L. Grove
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Introduction There is conflicting evidence on the risk–benefit ratio of oral anticoagulants (OAC) in heart failure (HF) patients without atrial fibrillation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OAC in HF patients in sinus rhythm. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies, comparing OAC with antiplatelet or no treatment/placebo in patients with HF. Outcomes evaluated were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Results Five RCTs and three cohort studies were included. OAC was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke when compared with no treatment/placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.47, 0.94]) and antiplatelet therapy (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.81]). No significant reduction was found in MI, when OAC was compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: [0.63, 1.07]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: [0.60, 1.81]). The all-cause mortality analysis showed no significant reduction when comparing OAC with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.87, 1.12]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: [0.86, 1.16]). The nonsignificant effect of OAC on all-cause mortality was supported by a meta-analysis of the three cohort studies (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: [0.75, 1.38]). Patients treated with OAC had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: [1.55, 3.00]) and a numerically higher risk when compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: [0.87, 6.49]). Conclusion The present study does not support the routine use of OAC in patients with HF in sinus rhythm.

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter-related bladder discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongbao Zhou ◽  
Yuanshan Cui ◽  
Xiaoyi Zhang ◽  
Youyi Lu ◽  
Zhipeng Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Facial Flushing ◽  
Blurred Vision ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objectives This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antimuscarinics for the prevention or treatment of catheter related bladder discomfort (CRBD). Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (from 1987 to July 2021) were used to search randomized controlled trials. The PRISMA checklists were followed. RevMan5.4.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eleven studies involving 1165 patients were involved in the analysis. The study reported that the incidence of CRBD observed in the antimuscarinics group was significantly lower than that of the control group at 0-, 1-, 2-, and 6-h after drug therapy (P = 0.001, P < 0.0001, P = 0.0005, and P = 0.001, respectively). For side effects, there were not statistical differences between the antimuscarinics group and the control group, mainly including dry mouth (risk ratio (RR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.95 to 1.80, P = 0.09), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.90, P = 0.87), facial flushing (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.43 to 2.61, P = 0.90), and blurred vision (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.35 to 2.58, P = 0.91). Besides, rescue analgesics were required less in the antimuscarinics group than in the control group (RR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.80, P = 0.003). Conclusions Compared with the control group, the antimuscarinics group had a significant improvement on CRBD, the patients were well tolerated and the use rate of rescue analgesics was low.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document