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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |