期刊文献+

Dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for patients with long-term oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for patients with long-term oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis
下载PDF
导出
摘要 这元分析的 ObjectiveThe 主要目的为在冠的 intervention.MethodsPubMed 以后拿 OAC 的病人是为在最佳的政体仍然是的冠的 intervention.BackgroundThe 以后拿口头的 anticoagulation ( OAC )的病人比较双对单个的 antiplatelet 治疗的功效和安全争论的, Embase 和 Cochrane 控制试用的中央收款机为病人 requ 包括三倍的治疗( TT )对 OAC 正单个 antiplatelet 治疗的数据被在找合格研究主要结果是主要不利心脏、脑血管的事件(MACCE ) 。安全结果是与 32,825 个病人一起的主要 bleeding.ResultsFourteen 研究被包括。在未来的研究之中,有 TT 的病人向主要流血的更高的风险有一个趋势[机会比率(或) :1.56, 95% 信心间隔(CI ) :0.98-2.49, P = 0.06 ] 并且所有原因死亡的显著地更高的风险(或;2.11, 95% CI:1.10-4.06 P = 0.02 ) 与 OAC 正 clopidogrel 相比。同时, TT 与 MACCE 的减少的风险被联系(或:0.63, 95% CI:051-0.77 P < 0.0001 ) ,所有原因死亡(或:0.45, 95% CI:0.20-0.97, P = 0.04 ) ,并且 stroke/transient ischemic 攻击(TIA )/peripheral 栓塞(PE )( 或:0.29, 95% CI:0.09-0.96, P = 0.04 ) 与在冠的干预以后要求 OAC 的 OAC 正 aspirin.ConclusionsFor 病人相比, OAC 正 clopidogrel 可以比 TT 带更临床的网利益,而 OAC 正阿司匹林应该是最后选择。更大尺寸的使随机化的控制试用被需要证实这些调查结果。 Objective The main aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for pa- tients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) after coronary intervention. Background The optimal regimen remains controversial for patients taking OAC after coronary intervention. Methods PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies including data of triple therapy (TT) versus OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy for patients requiring OAC after coronary intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE). The safety outcome was major bleeding. Results Fourteen studies with 32,825 patients were included. Among prospective studies, patients with TT had a trend toward a higher risk of major bleeding [odds ratios (OR): 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-2.49, P = 0.06] and a markedly higher risk of all-cause death (OR; 2.11, 95% CI: 1.10-4.06 P = 0.02) compared with OAC plus clopidogrel. Meanwhile, TT was associated with decreased risks of MACCE (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 051-0.77 P 〈 0.0001), all-cause death (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.20-0.97, P = 0.04), and stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA)/peripheral embolism (PE) (OR= 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09~3.96, P = 0.04) compared with OAC plus aspirin. Conclusions For pa- tients requiring OAC after coronary intervention, OAC plus clopidogrel may bring more clinical net benefit than TT, whereas OAC plus aspirin should be the last choice. More large-size randomized control trials are needed to confirm these findings.
出处 《Journal of Geriatric Cardiology》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2017年第12期725-736,共12页 老年心脏病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 治疗 评论 系统 PUBMED OAC 阿司匹林 调查结果 CI Coronary intervention Dual therapy Efficacy Oral anticoagulation Safety Triple therapy
  • 相关文献

共引文献8

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部