Tao He's research while affiliated with Huazhong University of Science and Technology and other places

Thromboprophylaxis is the cornerstone strategy for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Data comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in APS patients remain contentious. We aim to review and analyse literature on the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared with VKAs in treating patients with APS. A literature search was performed from inception to 31 December 2021. Subgroups were analysed based on the risk stratification of APS profiles and different DOAC types. A total of nine studies with 1131 patients were included in the meta-analysis. High-risk APS patients (triple positive APS) who used DOACs displayed an increased risk of recurrent thrombosis [risk ratio = 3.65, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.49–8.93; I² = 29%, P = 0.005] compared with those taking VKAs. Similar risk of recurrent thrombosis or major bleeding was noted in low-risk APS patients (single or double antibody-positive) upon administering DOACs or VKAs. The utilization of Rivaroxaban was associated with a high risk of recurrent thromboses (RR = 2.63; 95% CI: 1.56–4.42; I² = 0, P = 0.0003), particularly recurrent arterial thromboses (RR = 4.52; 95% CI: 1.99–10.29; I² = 0, P = 0.18) in overall APS patients. Comparisons of the rate of recurrent thrombosis events and major bleeding events when using dabigatran or apixaban versus VKAs yielded no statistical differences. In the absence of contraindications, this meta-analysis suggests that VKAs remain the first-choice treatment for high-risk APS patients, with DOACs a more appropriate option for low-risk APS patients. Different DOACs may exhibit different levels of efficacy and safety for thromboprophylaxis in APS patients and require further exploration.

Background Thromboprophylaxis is the cornerstone strategy for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Data comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in APS patients remain contentious. Objectives We aim to review and analyze literature on the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared to VKAs in treating patients with APS. A literature search was performed from inception to March 1, 2022. Subgroups were analyzed based on the risk stratification of APS profiles and different DOAC types. Results A total of 9 studies with 1131 patients were included in the meta-analysis. High-risk APS patients (triple positive APS) who used DOACs displayed an increased risk of recurrent thrombosis (RR=3.65, 95% CI:1.49-8.93; I ² =29%, P=0.005) compared to those taking VKAs. Similar risk of recurrent thrombosis or major bleeding was noted in low-risk APS patients (single or double antibody-positive) upon administering DOACs or VKAs. The utilization of Rivaroxaban was associated with a high risk of recurrent thromboses (RR=2.63; 95% CI, 1.56-4.42; I ² =0, P=0.0003), particularly recurrent arterial thromboses (RR=4.52; 95% CI, 1.99-10.29; I ² =0, P=0.18) in overall APS patients. Comparisons of the rate of recurrent thrombosis events and major bleeding events when using dabigatran or apixaban versus VKAs yielded no statistical differences. Conclusions In the absence of contraindications, this meta-analysis suggests that VKAs remain the first-choice treatment for high-risk APS patients, with DOACs a more appropriate option for low-risk APS patients. Different DOACs may exhibit different levels of efficacy and safety for thromboprophylaxis in APS patients and require further exploration.

Background: The introduction of endovascular surgery has led to frequent stent use, although in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenging issue. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) and conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) are common endovascular procedures for addressing ISR in the femoropopliteal artery. However, there is controversy regarding which procedure provides the greatest benefit to patients. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for prospective controlled trials that compared DCB and BA for patients with ISR in the femoropopliteal artery. The study has been approved by Ethics Committee of Wuhan Central Hospital. Results: The meta-analysis included 6 prospective trials with 541 patients. We found that DCB use was associated with significant reductions in binary restenosis at 6 months (relative risk [RR]: 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.63; P < .00001), binary restenosis at 1 year (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34-0.57; P < .00001), target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 6 months (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.20-0.65; P = .0006), and TLR at 1 year (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.27-0.54; P < .00001). The DCB group also had significantly better clinical improvement (RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.13-1.71; P = .002), although we did not detect inter-group differences in terms of death, target vessel thrombosis, or ipsilateral amputation. The brand of DCB may a cause of heterogeneity. Conclusion: Relative to BA, DCB use increases the durability of treatment for ISR in the femoropopliteal artery, based on significant reductions in binary restenosis and TLR at 6-12 months after the procedure. Furthermore, DCB use was associated with better clinical improvement. However, additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.