Efficacy and safety of chemical thromboprophylaxis in renal transplantation - A systematic review.


Journal

Thrombosis research
ISSN: 1879-2472
Titre abrégé: Thromb Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0326377

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2020
Historique:
received: 06 03 2020
revised: 01 05 2020
accepted: 11 05 2020
pubmed: 29 5 2020
medline: 22 6 2021
entrez: 29 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The benefit of administering chemical thromboprophylaxis to chronic kidney disease patients undergoing renal transplantation is unclear and no previous systematic review has addressed this as reflected by variations in national guidelines. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to December 2019. Studies included participants undergoing renal transplantation only with no contra-indication to thromboprophylaxis, no history/clinical suspicion of acute organ rejection and those describing a form of chemical thromboprophylaxis intervention compared with another form, no intervention or placebo. Thirteen studies with 1600 patients were included. There was wide variation concerning type of thromboprophylaxis, time of onset, dosing and duration. Reports of symptomatic/asymptomatic venous thromboembolism and mortality were limited. Seven studies reported on renal allograft thrombosis. When comparing thromboprophylaxis to no intervention, there was no evidence of difference for thrombosis risk (risk ratio 0.2; [95% CI 0.01-4.63]), however all studies were underpowered to answer this question. Six studies reported on major bleeding but type of intervention, timing of onset and duration of thromboprophylaxis varied significantly, making it difficult to pool data for further analysis. There is insufficient evidence to advise on efficacy and safety of chemical thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing renal transplantation or to determine whether one chemical thromboprophylaxis is better than another thromboprophylaxis.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32464453
pii: S0049-3848(20)30185-7
doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.05.013
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anticoagulants 0
Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

88-95

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Auteurs

Ruchika Kohli (R)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, UK; Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: r.kohli@qmul.ac.uk.

Lise Estcourt (L)

Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, UK.

Abbas Zaidi (A)

Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospital NHS Trust, UK.

Raj Thuraisingham (R)

Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Suzanne Forbes (S)

Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Peter MacCallum (P)

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, UK; Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

Joachim Tan (J)

St. Georges University of London, UK.

Laura Green (L)

Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, UK; NHS Blood & Transplant, London, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH