4.6 Review

Association between statin use and plasma D-dimer levels

期刊

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 114, 期 3, 页码 546-557

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1160/TH14-11-0937

关键词

D-dimer; statin; coagulation; fibrinolysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

D-dimers, specific breakdown fragments of cross-linked fibrin, are generally used as circulating markers of activated coagulation. Statins influence haemostatic factors, but their effect on plasma D-dimer levels is controversial. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between statin therapy and plasma D-dimer levels. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus and EMBASE (up to September 25, 2014) to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of statin therapy on plasma D-dimer levels. Two independent reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods and outcomes. Meta-analysis of data from nine RCTs with 1,165 participants showed a significant effect of statin therapy in reducing plasma D-dimer levels (standardised mean difference [SMD]: -0.988 mu g/ml, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.590- -0.385, p=0.001). The effect size was robust in sensitivity analysis and omission of no single study significantly changed the overall estimated effect size. In the subgroup analysis, the effect of statins on plasma D-dimer levels was significant only in the subsets of studies with treatment duration >= 12 weeks (SMD: -0.761 mu g/ml, 95%CI: -1.163- -0.360; p<0.001), and for lipophilic statins (atorvastatin and simvastatin) (SMD: -1.364 mu g/ml, 95% CI: -2.202- -0.526; p=0.001). Hydrophilic statins (pravastatin and rosuvastatin) did not significantly reduce plasma D-dimer levels (SMD: -0.237 mu g/ml, 95%CI: -1.140-0.665, p=0.606). This meta-analysis of RCTs suggests a decrease of plasma D-dimer levels after three months of statin therapy, and especially after treatment with lipophilic statins. Well-designed trials are required to validate these results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据