4.0 Article

Early prophylactic anticoagulation for portal vein system thrombosis after splenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

BIOMEDICAL REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 483-490

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/br.2016.755

Keywords

anticoagulation; portal vein system thrombosis; splenectomy; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early prophylactic anticoagulation for the prevention of portal vein system thrombosis (PVST) after splenectomy. A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Springer and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify studies comparing the outcomes in patients receiving or not receiving regular prophylactic anticoagulation after splenectomy. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Jadad Score and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the (2) and I-2 tests. The parameters that were analyzed included the incidence of PVST and anticoagulation-associated complications. A total of seven studies qualified for the review, involving 383 and 283 patients receiving or not receiving regular prophylactic anticoagulation, respectively. The incidence of PVST was significantly reduced with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-0.46; P<0.00001] in the regular prophylactic anticoagulation group compared with the control group. No difference in the incidence of anticoagulation-associated complications was identified between the two groups (OR=0.60, 95% CI, 0.23-1.56; P=0.30). Early prophylactic anticoagulation was associated with a reduced incidence of PVST, although it was not associated with the incidence of anticoagulation-associated complications. These results indicate that prophylactic anticoagulation could be safely administered after splenectomy, even to cirrhotic patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available