Cargando…

The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are commonly used for preventing venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Although, LMWH is the most commonly used drug, it has yet to be established whether it is more eff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Ze, Sun, Yun, Xue, Hang, Chen, Lang, Yan, Chenchen, Panayi, Adriana C., Mi, Bobin, Liu, Guohui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33853656
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02412-7
_version_ 1783679165826859008
author Lin, Ze
Sun, Yun
Xue, Hang
Chen, Lang
Yan, Chenchen
Panayi, Adriana C.
Mi, Bobin
Liu, Guohui
author_facet Lin, Ze
Sun, Yun
Xue, Hang
Chen, Lang
Yan, Chenchen
Panayi, Adriana C.
Mi, Bobin
Liu, Guohui
author_sort Lin, Ze
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are commonly used for preventing venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Although, LMWH is the most commonly used drug, it has yet to be established whether it is more effective and safer than UFH. Further, a comparison of the effectiveness of LMWH in preventing thrombosis at different locations and different degrees of spinal cord injury has also not been clearly defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort studies comparing the use of LMWH and UFH in the prevention of lower limb venous thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury were identified using PubMed. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed using forest plots. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The main results of the study were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: A total of five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Four studies compared the effectiveness and safety of LMWH and UFH in preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury. No significant differences were found between the therapeutic effects of the two drugs, and the summary RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.42–4.16; P = 0.63). There was also no significant difference in the risk of bleeding between the two medications, and the aggregate RR was 0.78 (95% CI 0.55–1.12; P = 0.18). When comparing the efficacy of LMWH in preventing thrombosis in different segments and different degrees of spinal cord injury, no significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis show that compared with UFH, LMWH has no obvious advantages in efficacy nor risk prevention, and there is no evident difference in the prevention of thrombosis for patients with injuries at different spinal cord segments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-021-02412-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8048068
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80480682021-04-15 The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis Lin, Ze Sun, Yun Xue, Hang Chen, Lang Yan, Chenchen Panayi, Adriana C. Mi, Bobin Liu, Guohui J Orthop Surg Res Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are commonly used for preventing venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Although, LMWH is the most commonly used drug, it has yet to be established whether it is more effective and safer than UFH. Further, a comparison of the effectiveness of LMWH in preventing thrombosis at different locations and different degrees of spinal cord injury has also not been clearly defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort studies comparing the use of LMWH and UFH in the prevention of lower limb venous thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury were identified using PubMed. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed using forest plots. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The main results of the study were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: A total of five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Four studies compared the effectiveness and safety of LMWH and UFH in preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury. No significant differences were found between the therapeutic effects of the two drugs, and the summary RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.42–4.16; P = 0.63). There was also no significant difference in the risk of bleeding between the two medications, and the aggregate RR was 0.78 (95% CI 0.55–1.12; P = 0.18). When comparing the efficacy of LMWH in preventing thrombosis in different segments and different degrees of spinal cord injury, no significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis show that compared with UFH, LMWH has no obvious advantages in efficacy nor risk prevention, and there is no evident difference in the prevention of thrombosis for patients with injuries at different spinal cord segments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-021-02412-7. BioMed Central 2021-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8048068/ /pubmed/33853656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02412-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Lin, Ze
Sun, Yun
Xue, Hang
Chen, Lang
Yan, Chenchen
Panayi, Adriana C.
Mi, Bobin
Liu, Guohui
The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
title The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
title_full The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
title_short The effectiveness and safety of LMWH for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
title_sort effectiveness and safety of lmwh for preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33853656
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02412-7
work_keys_str_mv AT linze theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT sunyun theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT xuehang theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT chenlang theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT yanchenchen theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT panayiadrianac theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT mibobin theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT liuguohui theeffectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT linze effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT sunyun effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT xuehang effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT chenlang effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT yanchenchen effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT panayiadrianac effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT mibobin effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis
AT liuguohui effectivenessandsafetyoflmwhforpreventingthrombosisinpatientswithspinalcordinjuryametaanalysis