RESUMEN
To compare the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of DOACs versus VKAs in patients with a previously and newly surgically implanted BHV with or without AF. A systematic search on MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed till November 2022. Treatment effects were estimated with relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 subgroup analysis from ARISTOTLE and ENGAGE-AF-TIMI 48 and 4 observational studies were included for a total of 5808 patients, 1893 on DOACs and 3915 on VKAs. AF prevalence was 98.28%. In the overall analysis, DOACs vs VKAs were associated with a RR for stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA)/systemic embolism (SE) of 0.63 (95% CI 0.51-0.79; I2 = 0%) and a RR of major bleeding of 0.50 (95% CI 0.39-0.63; I2 = 0%) in a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR 4.5-33.4). In the 3 RCTs (DAWA, RIVER, ENAVLE), DOACs vs VKAs were associated with a RR of stroke/TIA/SE and major bleeding of 0.38 (95% CI 0.13-1.58, I2 = 0%) and of 0.68 (95% CI 0.32-1.44; I2 = 5%) respectively. In patients randomized during the first three months from valve surgery, DOACs vs VKAs were associated with a RR of stroke/TIA/SE and major bleeding of 0.54 (95% CI 0.14-2.08; I2 = 0%) and of 0.76 (95% CI 0.05-10.72; I2 = 66%). In previously implanted BHV patients with AF, DOACs showed a risk-benefit profile at least comparable to VKAs. DOACs showed a similar, even if underpowered, risk-benefit profile during the first three months after BHV implantation prevalently in patients with AF.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Embolia , Ataque Isquémico Transitorio , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Humanos , Ataque Isquémico Transitorio/complicaciones , Fibrilación Atrial/tratamiento farmacológico , Anticoagulantes/farmacología , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Hemorragia/tratamiento farmacológico , Accidente Cerebrovascular/complicaciones , Embolia/complicaciones , Válvulas Cardíacas , Administración Oral , Vitamina K/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography has simplified the diagnostic approach to patients with clinically suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but alternative imaging tests are still advocated. We aimed to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) and Q single-photon emission CT combined with low-dose CT (SPECT/CT) for PE diagnosis. METHODS: Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT/CT for the diagnosis of acute PE were systematically searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (up to August 2022). The QUADAS-2 tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment of the primary studies. A bivariate random-effects regression approach was used for summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021276538. RESULTS: Eight studies, for a total of 1,086 patients, were included. The risk of bias of all included studies was high. The weighted mean prevalence of PE was 27.1% at the random-effects model. The SPECT/CT bivariate weighted mean sensitivity was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93-98%), with a bivariate weighted mean specificity of 95% (95% CI: 90-97%). At subgroup analysis, for V/Q SPECT/CT bivariate weighted mean sensitivity and specificity were 96% (95% CI: 89-98%) and 96% (95% CI: 91-99%), while for Q SPECT/CT they were 96% (95% CI: 92-98%) and 84% (95% CI: 66-93%), respectively. CONCLUSION: V/Q SPECT/CT has high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of acute PE, meanwhile Q SPECT/CT has high sensitivity but limited specificity for the diagnosis of PE. Management studies will conclusively ascertain the actual role of SPECT/CT in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected acute PE.