PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Current observational studies have compared the effectiveness and safety of edoxaban with other oral anticoagulants in patients with AF, but the results are still disputed. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of edoxaban in patients with AF.
UNASSIGNED: We performed systematic research from the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until November 2022 to obtain relevant observational studies. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were collected and pooled by a random-effects model. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022314222).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 17 observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with vitamin K antagonists, edoxaban was associated with lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.67, 95 % CI:0.61-0.74), major bleeding (RR = 0.54, 95 % CI:0.44-0.67), and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.51, 95 % CI:0.29-0.90). Compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, edoxaban was associated with reduced risks of stroke or systemic embolism (dabigatran [RR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.66-0.87]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]) and major bleeding (dabigatran [RR = 0.82, 95 % CI:0.69-0.98]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]). Compared with apixaban, edoxaban was associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.87, 95 % CI:0.79-0.97), but had similar risks of bleeding events.
UNASSIGNED: Our current evidence suggested that edoxaban might have superior effectiveness and/or safety outcomes than vitamin K antagonists, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with AF.
UNASSIGNED: We performed systematic research from the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until November 2022 to obtain relevant observational studies. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were collected and pooled by a random-effects model. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022314222).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 17 observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with vitamin K antagonists, edoxaban was associated with lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.67, 95 % CI:0.61-0.74), major bleeding (RR = 0.54, 95 % CI:0.44-0.67), and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.51, 95 % CI:0.29-0.90). Compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, edoxaban was associated with reduced risks of stroke or systemic embolism (dabigatran [RR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.66-0.87]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]) and major bleeding (dabigatran [RR = 0.82, 95 % CI:0.69-0.98]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]). Compared with apixaban, edoxaban was associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.87, 95 % CI:0.79-0.97), but had similar risks of bleeding events.
UNASSIGNED: Our current evidence suggested that edoxaban might have superior effectiveness and/or safety outcomes than vitamin K antagonists, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with AF.
摘要：
■目前的观察性研究比较了依度沙班与其他口服抗凝药在房颤患者中的有效性和安全性，但是结果仍然存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在比较依度沙班对房颤患者的疗效。
■我们从PubMed进行了系统研究，EMBASE,和Cochrane图书馆数据库，直到2022年11月才能获得相关的观察性研究。通过随机效应模型收集并汇总结果的调整风险比（RR）和95％置信区间（CI）。本研究在PROSPERO（CRD42022314222）中进行了前瞻性注册。
■本荟萃分析共纳入17项观察性研究。与维生素K拮抗剂相比，依度沙班与卒中或全身性栓塞的风险较低相关(RR=0.67,95%CI:0.61-0.74),大出血（RR=0.54，95%CI：0.44-0.67），和颅内出血（RR=0.51，95％CI：0.29-0.90）。与达比加群或利伐沙班相比，依度沙班与卒中或全身性栓塞风险降低相关(达比加群[RR=0.76,95%CI:0.66-0.87];利伐沙班[RR=0.81,95%CI:0.70-0.94])和大出血(达比加群[RR=0.82,95%CI:0.69-0.98];利伐沙班[RR=0.81-94%]:0.70.与阿哌沙班相比，依度沙班与卒中或全身性栓塞的风险降低相关(RR=0.87,95%CI:0.79-0.97),但有类似的出血事件风险.
■我们目前的证据表明，依度沙班可能比维生素K拮抗剂具有更好的有效性和/或安全性结果，达比加群,利伐沙班,和阿哌沙班用于预防房颤患者的卒中。
■我们从PubMed进行了系统研究，EMBASE,和Cochrane图书馆数据库，直到2022年11月才能获得相关的观察性研究。通过随机效应模型收集并汇总结果的调整风险比（RR）和95％置信区间（CI）。本研究在PROSPERO（CRD42022314222）中进行了前瞻性注册。
■本荟萃分析共纳入17项观察性研究。与维生素K拮抗剂相比，依度沙班与卒中或全身性栓塞的风险较低相关(RR=0.67,95%CI:0.61-0.74),大出血（RR=0.54，95%CI：0.44-0.67），和颅内出血（RR=0.51，95％CI：0.29-0.90）。与达比加群或利伐沙班相比，依度沙班与卒中或全身性栓塞风险降低相关(达比加群[RR=0.76,95%CI:0.66-0.87];利伐沙班[RR=0.81,95%CI:0.70-0.94])和大出血(达比加群[RR=0.82,95%CI:0.69-0.98];利伐沙班[RR=0.81-94%]:0.70.与阿哌沙班相比，依度沙班与卒中或全身性栓塞的风险降低相关(RR=0.87,95%CI:0.79-0.97),但有类似的出血事件风险.
■我们目前的证据表明，依度沙班可能比维生素K拮抗剂具有更好的有效性和/或安全性结果，达比加群,利伐沙班,和阿哌沙班用于预防房颤患者的卒中。
