Anticoagulation for people receiving long-term haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis (HD) requires safe and effective anticoagulation to prevent clot formation within the extracorporeal circuit during dialysis treatments to enable adequate dialysis and minimise adverse events, including major bleeding. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may provide a more predictable dose, reliable anticoagulant effects and be simpler to administer than unfractionated heparin (UFH) for HD anticoagulation, but may accumulate in the kidneys and lead to bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation strategies (including both heparin and non-heparin drugs) for long-term HD in people with kidney failure. Any intervention preventing clotting within the extracorporeal circuit without establishing anticoagulation within the patient, such as regional citrate, citrate enriched dialysate, heparin-coated dialysers, pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF), and saline flushes were also included.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to November 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled studies (quasi-RCTs) evaluating anticoagulant agents administered during HD treatment in adults and children with kidney failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. Treatment effects were estimated using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 113 studies randomising 4535 participants. The risk of bias in each study was adjudicated as high or unclear for most risk domains. Compared to UFH, LMWH had uncertain effects on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis (3 studies, 91 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.42; I2 = 8%; low certainty evidence), while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate anticoagulation may lower the risk of minor bleeding compared to UFH (2 studies, 82 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data comparing regional citrate to UFH on risks of extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and major bleeding. The effects of very LMWH, danaparoid, prostacyclin, direct thrombin inhibitors, factor XI inhibitors or heparin-grafted membranes were uncertain due to insufficient data. The effects of different LMWH, different doses of LMWH, and the administration of LMWH anticoagulants using inlet versus outlet bloodline or bolus versus infusion were uncertain. Evidence to compare citrate to another citrate or control was scant. The effects of UFH compared to no anticoagulant therapy or different doses of UFH were uncertain. Death, dialysis vascular access outcomes, blood transfusions, measures of anticoagulation effect, and costs of interventions were rarely reported. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospital admissions. Adverse events were inconsistently and rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant strategies, including UFH and LMWH, have uncertain comparative risks on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate may decrease minor bleeding, but the effects on major bleeding and extracorporeal circuit thrombosis were not reported. Evidence supporting clinical decision-making for different forms of anticoagulant strategies for HD is of low and very low certainty, as available studies have not been designed to measure treatment effects on important clinical outcomes.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).   For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

Antithrombotic treatment after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane Review last published in 2017. Survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatments may lower the risk of ischaemic MACE after ICH, but they may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs on MACE and its components for people with ICH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (5 October 2021). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to October 2021) and Embase Ovid (from 1980 to October 2021). The online registries of clinical trials searched were the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 October 2021). We screened the reference lists of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for additional, potentially relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs in which participants with ICH of any age were allocated to a class of antithrombotic treatment as intervention or comparator.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In accordance with standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, two review authors assessed each selected RCT for its risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was a composite of MACE, and secondary outcomes included death, individual components of the MACE composite, ICH growth, functional status and cognitive status. We estimated effects using the frequency of outcomes that occurred during the entire duration of follow-up and calculated a risk ratio (RR) for each RCT. We grouped RCTs separately for analysis according to 1) the class(es) of antithrombotic treatment used for the intervention and comparator, and 2) the duration of antithrombotic treatment use (short term versus long term). We pooled the intention-to-treat populations of RCTs using a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis, but used a random-effects model if RCTs differed substantially in their design or there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 75%) in their results. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven new completed RCTs for this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of nine RCTs based in secondary care, comprising 1491 participants (average age ranged from 61 to 79 years and the proportion of men ranged from 44% to 67%). The proportion of included RCTs at low risk of bias, by category was: random sequence generation (67%), allocation concealment (67%), performance (22%), detection (78%), attrition (89%), and reporting (78%). For starting versus avoiding short-term prophylactic dose anticoagulation after ICH, no RCT reported MACE. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of starting short-term prophylactic dose anticoagulation on death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.70, P = 1.00; 3 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37, P = 0.49; 4 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), ICH (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38, P = 0.11; 2 RCTs; very low-certainty evidence), and independent functional status (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.25, P = 0.15; 1 RCT; very low-certainty evidence) over 90 days. For starting versus avoiding long-term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after ICH, starting long-term therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation probably reduces MACE (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94, P = 0.02; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably reduces all major occlusive vascular events (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.53, P = 0.0002; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in little to no difference in death (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78, P = 0.86; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), probably increases intracranial haemorrhage (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.88 to 6.73, P = 0.09; 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in independent functional status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24, P = 0.87; 2 RCTs; low-certainty evidence) over one to three years. For starting versus avoiding long-term antiplatelet therapy after ICH, the evidence is uncertain about the effects of starting long-term antiplatelet therapy on MACE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22, P = 0.46; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), death (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.53, P = 0.66; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), all major occlusive vascular events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.55, P = 0.90; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence), ICH (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03, P = 0.06; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence) and independent functional status (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18, P = 0.67; 1 RCT; moderate-certainty evidence) over a median follow-up of two years. For adults within 180 days of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack and a clinical history of prior ICH, there was no evidence of an effect of long-term cilostazol compared to aspirin on MACE (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.40, P = 0.34; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence), death (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.91, P = 0.37; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence), or ICH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.69, P = 0.70; subgroup of 1 RCT; low-certainty evidence) over a median follow-up of 1.8 years; all major occlusive vascular events and functional status were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify beneficial or hazardous effects of short-term prophylactic dose parenteral anticoagulation and long-term oral antiplatelet therapy after ICH on important outcomes. Although there was a significant reduction in MACE and all major occlusive vascular events after long-term treatment with therapeutic dose oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after ICH, the pooled estimates were imprecise, the certainty of evidence was only moderate, and effects on other important outcomes were uncertain. Large RCTs with a low risk of bias are required to resolve the ongoing dilemmas about antithrombotic treatment after ICH.

Maximum 24-hour platelet count fall: Metric for improving the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among patients with intermediate probability 4Ts scores

BACKGROUND

Most patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and an intermediate probability 4Ts score do not have HIT. We aimed to develop a metric based on the rate of platelet count fall to aid in discriminating HIT status among patients with an intermediate 4Ts score.

METHODS

We derived a measure of the maximum 24-hour percentage decrease in platelet count (Fallmax ) in a cohort of patients with suspected HIT and an intermediate 4Ts score at the University of Pennsylvania. We validated this metric in a prospectively collected cohort of patients with suspected HIT and an intermediate 4Ts score from four hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-eight and 139 patients were included in the analysis from the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Fallmax was significantly higher in HIT-positive patients in the derivation cohort (49.6% versus 38.6%, P = .009) and validation cohort (43.5% versus 29.3%, P = .027). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.78) and 0.71 (0.59-0.83) in the two cohorts, respectively. At Fallmax  ≥ 30%, sensitivity and specificity were 95.5% and 29.4% in the derivation cohort and 80.0% and 52.7% in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with suspected HIT and an intermediate 4Ts score, Fallmax aided in discriminating HIT-negative from HIT-positive patients. Using a measure that accounts for the rate of platelet count fall may help to avoid unnecessary suspension of heparin and treatment with an alternative anticoagulant in HIT-negative patients with an intermediate probability 4Ts score, though further evaluation is warranted.

Slow versus fast subcutaneous heparin injections for prevention of bruising and site pain intensity

BACKGROUND

Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. For patients and healthcare providers, strategies that can reduce pain and bruising are considered important. Reducing patients' discomfort and concerns whenever and wherever possible is an important aim of nursing. Several studies have been carried out to see if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given, but results of these studies have differed and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the first update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain, haematoma, and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). The CIS also searched trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. Review authors searched two Persian databases - Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database (SID) - as well as Google Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MM, LJ), working independently, extracted data onto a structured form and assessed study quality. We used the criteria recommended by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For the outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or the standardised MD (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting outcomes assessed in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified three new studies and therefore included in the Review four studies with a total of 459 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Only one trial reported the injected drug volume (0.4 mL). Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and care givers (personnel) in any included study. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors; therefore overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies.Three studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection, and meta-analysis on 140 participants showed no clear difference in site pain intensity immediately post slow injection when compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.15). In contrast, meta-analysis of two studies with 59 participants showed that 48 hours after the heparin injection, slow injection was associated with less pain intensity compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.007). One study (40 participants) reported pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours after injection. This study described no clear difference in site pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours post slow injection compared to fast injection.All four included studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours after each injection. Meta-analysis on 459 participants showed no difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.07). None of the included studies measured the incidence of haematoma as an outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found four RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity and bruise size. Owing to the small numbers of participants, we found insufficient evidence to determine any effect on pain intensity immediately after injection or at 60 and 72 hours post injection. However, slow injection may reduce site pain intensity 48 hours after injection (low-quality evidence). We observed no clear difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence). We judged this evidence to be of low quality owing to imprecision and inconsistency.

Slow versus fast subcutaneous heparin injections for prevention of bruising and site pain intensity

BACKGROUND

Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. For patients and healthcare providers, strategies that can reduce pain and bruising are considered important. Reducing patients' discomfort and concerns whenever and wherever possible is an important aim of nursing. Several studies have been carried out to see if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given, but results of these studies have differed and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the first update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain, haematoma, and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). The CIS also searched trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. Review authors searched two Persian databases - Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database (SID) - as well as Google Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (MM, LJ), working independently, extracted data onto a structured form and assessed study quality. We used the criteria recommended by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For the outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) or the standardised MD (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting outcomes assessed in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified three new studies and therefore included in the Review four studies with a total of 459 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Only one trial reported the injected drug volume (0.4 mL). Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and care givers (personnel) in any included study. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors; therefore overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies.Three studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection, and meta-analysis on 140 participants showed no clear difference in site pain intensity immediately post slow injection when compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.15). In contrast, meta-analysis of two studies with 59 participants showed that 48 hours after the heparin injection, slow injection was associated with less pain intensity compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.007). One study (40 participants) reported pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours after injection. This study described no clear difference in site pain intensity at 60 and 72 hours post slow injection compared to fast injection.All four included studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours after each injection. Meta-analysis on 459 participants showed no difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence; P = 0.07). None of the included studies measured the incidence of haematoma as an outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found four RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity and bruise size. Owing to the small numbers of participants, we found insufficient evidence to determine any effect on pain intensity immediately after injection or at 60 and 72 hours post injection. However, slow injection may reduce site pain intensity 48 hours after injection (low-quality evidence). We observed no clear difference in bruise size after slow injection compared to fast injection (low-quality evidence). We judged this evidence to be of low quality owing to imprecision and inconsistency.

Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with one or more risk factors for stroke; however, anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range (TTR)) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is dependent on many factors. Educational and behavioural interventions may impact patients' ability to maintain their international normalised ratio (INR) control. This is an updated version of the original review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of educational and behavioural interventions for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) on TTR in patients with AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library (January 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1949 to February week 1 2016), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE Ovid (1980 to Week 7 2016), PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to Week 1 February 2016) and CINAHL Plus with Full Text EBSCO (1937 to 16/02/2016). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any educational and behavioural intervention compared with usual care, no intervention, or intervention in combination with other self-management techniques among adults with AF who were eligible for, or currently receiving, OAT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We included outcome data on TTR, decision conflict (patient's uncertainty in making health-related decisions), percentage of INRs in the therapeutic range, major bleeding, stroke and thromboembolic events, patient knowledge, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), beliefs about medication, illness perceptions, and anxiety and depression. We pooled data for three outcomes - TTR, anxiety and depression, and decision conflict - and reported mean differences (MD). Where insufficient data were present to conduct a meta-analysis, we reported effect sizes and confidence intervals (CI) from the included studies. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials with a total of 2246 AF patients (ranging from 14 to 712 by study) were included within the review. Studies included education, decision aids, and self-monitoring plus education interventions. The effect of self-monitoring plus education on TTR was uncertain compared with usual care (MD 6.31, 95% CI -5.63 to 18.25, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 69 participants, very low-quality evidence). We found small but positive effects of education on anxiety (MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.04, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) and depression (MD -0.74, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. The effect of decision aids on decision conflict favoured usual care (MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 721 participants, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impact of educational or behavioural interventions on TTR in AF patients receiving OAT. Thus, more trials are needed to examine the impact of interventions on anticoagulation control in AF patients and the mechanisms by which they are successful. It is also important to explore the psychological implications for patients suffering from this long-term chronic condition.

Sulodexide for treating venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are common, chronic wounds caused by venous diseases, with a high recurrence rate and heavy disease burden. Compression therapy (bandages or stockings) is the first choice treatment for venous leg ulcers. However, when ulcers remain unhealed, medication can also be used with or without compression therapy. Sulodexide, a highly purified glycosaminoglycan (a naturally occurring molecule) has antithrombotic and profibrinolytic properties (it reduces the formation of blood clots) as well as anti-inflammatory effects. Sulodexide has been studied as a potential treatment for venous leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sulodexide for treating venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM); China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI); Wan Fang and VIP. We also searched clinical trials registries to identify ongoing studies, as well as references listed in relevant publications. There were no restrictions based on date of publication, language or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with a diagnosis of venous leg ulcers which compared sulodexide with placebo or any other drug therapy (such as pentoxifylline, flavonoids, aspirin), with or without compression therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled data to present the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or presented a narrative summary. We assessed overall evidence quality according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs with a total of 463 participants (aged 42 years to 93 years); one report was only available as a published abstract.Meta-analysis of three RCTs suggests an increase in the proportion of ulcers completely healed with sulodexide as an adjuvant to local treatment (including wound care and compression therapy) compared with local treatment alone (rate of complete healing with sulodexide 49.4% compared with 29.8% with local treatment alone; RR 1.66; 95% CI 1.30 to 2.12). This evidence for sulodexide increasing the rate of complete healing is low quality due to risk of bias. It is unclear whether sulodexide is associated with any increase in adverse events (4.4% with sulodexide versus 3.1% with no sulodexide; RR 1.44; 95% CI 0.48 to 4.34). The evidence for adverse events is very low quality, downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sulodexide may increase the healing of venous ulcers, when used alongside local wound care, however the evidence is only low quality and the conclusion is likely to be affected by new research. It is not clear whether sulodexide is associated with adverse effects. The standard dosage, route and frequency of sulodexide reported in the trials was unclear. Further rigorous, adequately powered RCTs examining the effects of sulodexide on healing, ulcer recurrence, quality of life and costs are necessary.

Anticoagulation therapy versus placebo for pulmonary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Elevation of pulmonary pressure is no longer a rare disease, given its multifactorial etiology. However data on the actual incidence of this condition are still limited, and controversies regarding its management are ongoing. Use of anticoagulation in the management of pulmonary hypertension is based on the presence of in situ thrombosis in the patient with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and on retrospective evidence of clinical benefit. Current practice is dependent mostly on expert opinion and individualised experience. The real benefit of its use in different types of pulmonary hypertension is still debatable, and the therapeutic target of the international normalised ratio (INR) among treated patients remains inconclusive. Adverse outcomes associated with anticoagulants are significant and can include fatal haemorrhage. Justification for the use of this intervention requires critical evaluation of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

1. To evaluate the effectiveness of, and potential adverse events associated with, anticoagulation in the management of pulmonary hypertension (PH).2. To evaluate the effective therapeutic INR in pulmonary hypertensive patients receiving anticoagulants (North American centres 1.5 to 2.5, European centres 2.0 to 3.0).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through searches of the following databases.Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCOhost); Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. The trial search date was 28 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include only randomised controlled trials. Participants with PH with co-morbidities including medical conditions requiring long-term anticoagulation were to be included. We also planned to include trials comparing any anticoagulant with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors (IE and HE) independently appraised all identified citations to establish their relevance for inclusion in the review. IE and HE independently screened the titles and abstracts of all identified potential studies for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

No eligible trials were identified for inclusion in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No eligible studies were identified for inclusion in this review. Although our review of available non-randomised studies shows beneficial effect, this finding should be interpreted with caution since there are likely to be biases associated with their design and our methods were not designed to identify, appraise and summarise evidence from them. So that better decisions can be made regarding the effectiveness of this intervention, well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed.

Once versus twice daily low molecular weight heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

In the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is administered once or twice daily. A once daily treatment regimen is more convenient for the patient and may optimise home treatment. However, it is not clear whether a once daily treatment regimen is as safe and effective as a twice daily treatment regimen. This is the second update of a review first published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of once daily versus twice daily administration of LMWH.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials in which LMWH given once daily is compared with LMWH given twice daily for the initial treatment of VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included with a total of 1508 participants. The pooled data showed no statistically significant difference in recurrent VTE between the two treatment regimens (OR 0.82, 0.49 to 1.39; P = 0.47). A comparison of major haemorrhagic events (OR 0.77, 0.40 to 1.45; P = 0.41), improvement of thrombus size (OR 1.41, 0.66 to 3.01; P = 0.38) and mortality (OR 1.14, 0.62 to 2.08; P = 0.68) also showed no statistically significant differences between the two treatment regimens. None of the five included studies reported data on post-thrombotic syndrome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Once daily treatment with LMWH is as effective and safe as twice daily treatment with LMWH.

Antiplatelet therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome and thrombocytopenia

Platelets are crucial in the pathogenesis of acute coronary syndrome. Treatment for acute coronary syndrome usually involves antiplatelet, anticoagulant, and antithrombotic therapy, and the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention. All of the medications are associated with bleeding sequelae and are typically withheld from patients who have thrombocytopenia. The safety of antiplatelet therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients who have acute coronary syndrome and thrombocytopenia is unknown, and there are no guidelines or randomized studies to suggest a treatment approach in such patients. Acute coronary syndrome is uncommon in patients who have thrombocytopenia; however, it occurs in up to 39% of patients who have both thrombocytopenia and cancer. Herein, we present the cases of 5 patients with acute coronary syndrome, thrombocytopenia, and cancer who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting. Before intervention, their platelet counts ranged from 17 to 72 x 10(9)/L. One patient underwent preprocedural platelet transfusion. All were given aspirin, alone or with clopidogrel. One patient experienced melena (of colonic origin). No other patient experienced bleeding sequelae. Aside from the occasional use of antiplatelet and thrombolytic agents in patients with thrombocytopenia, no therapeutic recommendation can be made until data are available on a larger patient population. Until then, treatment should conform to specific clinical circumstances. Approaches to the treatment of acute coronary syndrome in patients with thrombocytopenia might be better directed toward the evaluation of platelet function rather than toward absolute platelet count, and the risk-benefit equation of invasive procedures and antithrombotic therapies may need to incorporate this information.

Free intra-abdominal hemorrhage after open-heart surgery: an unusual gastrointestinal complication

Gastrointestinal complications after open-heart surgery are rare. Many preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors may predispose patients to these complications or cause them. Our patient was a 64-year-old woman who underwent aortic valve replacement due to aortic stenosis. Free intra-abdominal hemorrhage occurred on the 2nd postoperative day. During exploratory laparotomy, it was determined that the hemorrhage was from a vein near the falciform ligament of the liver and from a bleeding laceration of the splenic capsule. The complication was repaired surgically. To our knowledge, intra-abdominal hemorrhage of both liver and spleen after open-heart surgery has never been reported before, even in large patient series. We report the case and present our ideas regarding the cause of the bleeding.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with associated thrombosis in children after the Fontan operation: report of two cases

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is a widely recognized clinical disorder. The spectrum of disease ranges from clinically insignificant to severe thrombosis (heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with associated thrombosis). Overall, thrombosis occurs in approximately 33% of adults diagnosed with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and has been associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Diagnostic testing for this disorder is not standard in children with thrombocytopenia who are receiving heparin, despite the fact that children with congenital heart disease may be exposed to heparin frequently. There are few reported cases of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with associated thrombosis in children; herein, we describe the cases of 2 children who developed this disorder after undergoing a Fontan operation.