METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025.
RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority).
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. The anticoagulant drugs included are UFH, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any combination of warfarin, UFH, LMWH and placebo in pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbooks for Systemic Reviews of Interventions for assessing the eligibility of studies identified by the search strategy. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in the review.We identified three potential studies; after assessing eligibility, we excluded all three as they did not meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. One study compared LMWH and UFH in pregnant women with previous thromboembolic events and, for most of these women, anticoagulants were used as thromboprophylaxis. There were only three women who had a thromboembolic event during the current pregnancy and it was unclear whether the anticoagulant was used as therapy or prophylaxis. We excluded one study because it included only women undergoing caesarean birth. The third study was not a randomised trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of anticoagulation for deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. Further studies are required.
METHOD: A prospective cohort study of 31 consecutive newborn infants with UAC-associated aortic thrombi which were detected by abdominal ultrasonography after removal of UAC. Twenty-two infants were treated with intravenous infusion of low dose (1000 U/h) streptokinase, while nine others were not treated due to various contra-indications. Thrombolysis occurred after a mean interval of 2.2 days (standard deviation (SD) = 1.8) in the treated infants. In the untreated infants, spontaneous thrombolysis occurred significantly later, after a mean interval of 16.9 days (SD = 14.7) (95% confidence intervals of difference between mean intervals - 26.0, - 3.4; P = 0.02). Only one treated infant developed mild bleeding directly attributed to streptokinase therapy.
CONCLUSION: Low dose streptokinase infusion was effective and safe in thrombolysing UAC-associated aortic thrombi.
METHODS: AIS patients treated with IV rt-PA from February 2012 to August 2016 were recruited. Demographic data, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, timing and neuroradiological findings were recorded. Patients received a dose of 0.9 mg/kg IV rt-PA within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. mRS score was evaluated at discharge and three months, and good and poor clinical outcomes were defined as scores of 0-2 and 3-6, respectively. Baseline THRIVE scores were assessed.
RESULTS: 36 patients received IV rt-PA. 20 (55.6%) patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at three months. Based on THRIVE score, 86.1% had a good or moderately good prognosis. On univariate analysis, poor outcome was associated with NIHSS score before rt-PA (p = 0.03), THRIVE score (p = 0.02), stroke subtype (p = 0.049) and diabetes mellitus (DM; p = 0.06). Multiple logistic regression showed that outcome was significantly associated with NIHSS score before rt-PA (p = 0.032) and DM (p = 0.010).
CONCLUSION: Our newly developed Malaysian IV rt-PA service is safe, with similar outcomes to the published literature. Functional outcome after thrombolysis was associated with baseline NIHSS score and DM.