We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
The efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in cerebral vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Thrombosis Research 2018 September
BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the mainstay for the treatment of patients with acute cerebral vein thrombosis (CVT) with or without intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of LMWH compared to UFH for the treatment of acute CVT.
METHODS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, CENTRAL and Google Scholar was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for acute treatment of CVT were included. Outcomes of interest included mortality, disability, new ICH and pulmonary embolism (PE).
RESULTS: Overall, 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Two trials compared anticoagulation (UFH (N = 1) and LMWH (N = 1)) to placebo. The use of anticoagulation therapy was associated with an odd ratio (OR) for mortality and disability of 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.45; p = 0.14) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.01; p = 0.05), respectively. Three new ICHs were observed among patients receiving placebo and no patient had a PE complication. The other two trials compared LMWH to UFH. LMWH was associated with an OR for mortality and disability of 0.21 (95% CI 0.02 to 2.44, p = 0.21) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.11 to 2.23; p = 0.36), respectively. There were no new events of ICH or PE.
CONCLUSION: LMWH seems to be safe and effective for the management of acute CVT.
AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of LMWH compared to UFH for the treatment of acute CVT.
METHODS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, Pubmed, CENTRAL and Google Scholar was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation for acute treatment of CVT were included. Outcomes of interest included mortality, disability, new ICH and pulmonary embolism (PE).
RESULTS: Overall, 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Two trials compared anticoagulation (UFH (N = 1) and LMWH (N = 1)) to placebo. The use of anticoagulation therapy was associated with an odd ratio (OR) for mortality and disability of 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.45; p = 0.14) and 0.3 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.01; p = 0.05), respectively. Three new ICHs were observed among patients receiving placebo and no patient had a PE complication. The other two trials compared LMWH to UFH. LMWH was associated with an OR for mortality and disability of 0.21 (95% CI 0.02 to 2.44, p = 0.21) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.11 to 2.23; p = 0.36), respectively. There were no new events of ICH or PE.
CONCLUSION: LMWH seems to be safe and effective for the management of acute CVT.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app