Q1 Medicine
Arun Babu Rajeswaran , Arshad Ali , Saleh Safi , Ahmed Eid Abdulghani Saleh
{"title":"Erratum to ‘Efficacy and safety of local fibrinolytic therapy in intracranial hemorrhages: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials’ [World Neurosurgery: X (22C) (2024) 100316]","authors":"Arun Babu Rajeswaran ,&nbsp;Arshad Ali ,&nbsp;Saleh Safi ,&nbsp;Ahmed Eid Abdulghani Saleh","doi":"10.1016/j.wnsx.2024.100423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Local fibrinolytic therapy for ICH and IVH are used to dissolve clots, but their role remains debatable. This review aims to study the efficacy and safety of local fibrinolytic therapy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of science, clinical trials.gov, WHO and EU Clinical Trials Register were searched for RCTs only, on intra-clot fibrinolytics vs standard treatments for ICH and IVH.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirteen RCTs were included in the final data synthesis<strong>.</strong> In pooled analysis for IVH, fibrinolysis vs saline showed reduced mortality [RR-0.63 (0.46, 0.85)], less risk of ventriculitis [RR-0.59 (0.35, 1.00)] and higher daily reduction in clot size percentage [SMD-0.93 (0.39, 1.47)] with fibrinolysis but found no significant difference in functional outcome [RR-1.07 (0.88, 1.30)], in the risk of new bleedings [RR-1.36 (0.44, 4.23)] and shunt-dependent hydrocephalus (RR-1.10 [0.77, 1.59)]. In pooled analysis for ICH, with fibrinolysis vs standard craniotomy, there was a reduced mortality [RR-0.65 (0.20, 2.51)] with decreased risk for new hemorrhages in the fibrinolysis arm [RR-0.48 (0.30, 0.78)] while in fibrinolysis vs standard medical treatment, the trend was also a reduced mortality [RR-0.83 (0.65, 1.05)] with favourable outcome [RR-1.20 (1.00, 1.44)] and higher risk of new bleeds (RR-2.27 [1.23, 4.19]) but no significant difference in brain infections (RR-1.34 [0.24, 7.49]).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Local fibrinolytic therapy in ICH and IVH decreases mortality and improves the clot resolution but shows no substantial gain in the good functional outcome and has increased risk of new hemorrhages. Further studies required to consolidate evidence for their efficacy and safety.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37134,"journal":{"name":"World Neurosurgery: X","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 100423"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Neurosurgery: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590139724001546","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景ICH和IVH的局部纤维蛋白溶解疗法用于溶解血凝块,但其作用仍有待商榷。本综述旨在研究局部纤维蛋白溶解疗法的疗效和安全性。方法仅在Medline、Embase、CINAHL Plus、Cochrane、Scopus、Web of science、clinical trials.gov、WHO和欧盟临床试验注册中心检索了有关ICH和IVH血栓内纤维蛋白溶解疗法与标准疗法的RCT。在 IVH 的汇总分析中,纤维蛋白溶解与生理盐水相比,死亡率降低[RR-0.63 (0.46, 0.85)],脑室炎风险降低[RR-0.59 (0.35, 1.00)],每日血块大小减少百分比增加[SMD-0.93 (0. 39, 1.47)]。39,1.47)],但在功能预后[RR-1.07(0.88,1.30)]、新出血风险[RR-1.36(0.44,4.23)]和分流依赖性脑积水(RR-1.10 [0.77,1.59)]方面无显著差异。在对 ICH 进行的汇总分析中,纤维蛋白溶解与标准开颅手术相比,纤维蛋白溶解组死亡率降低 [RR-0.65 (0.20, 2.51)],新出血风险降低 [RR-0.48 (0.30, 0.78)],而纤维蛋白溶解与标准药物治疗相比,死亡率也呈降低趋势 [RR-0.83 (0.65, 1.05)],预后良好 [RR-1.20 (1.00, 1.44)],新出血风险较高 (RR-2.27 [1.23, 4.19]),但脑感染方面无显著差异 (RR-1.34 [0.24, 7.49])。需要进一步研究以巩固其疗效和安全性的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Erratum to ‘Efficacy and safety of local fibrinolytic therapy in intracranial hemorrhages: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials’ [World Neurosurgery: X (22C) (2024) 100316]

Background

Local fibrinolytic therapy for ICH and IVH are used to dissolve clots, but their role remains debatable. This review aims to study the efficacy and safety of local fibrinolytic therapy.

Methods

Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of science, clinical trials.gov, WHO and EU Clinical Trials Register were searched for RCTs only, on intra-clot fibrinolytics vs standard treatments for ICH and IVH.

Results

Thirteen RCTs were included in the final data synthesis. In pooled analysis for IVH, fibrinolysis vs saline showed reduced mortality [RR-0.63 (0.46, 0.85)], less risk of ventriculitis [RR-0.59 (0.35, 1.00)] and higher daily reduction in clot size percentage [SMD-0.93 (0.39, 1.47)] with fibrinolysis but found no significant difference in functional outcome [RR-1.07 (0.88, 1.30)], in the risk of new bleedings [RR-1.36 (0.44, 4.23)] and shunt-dependent hydrocephalus (RR-1.10 [0.77, 1.59)]. In pooled analysis for ICH, with fibrinolysis vs standard craniotomy, there was a reduced mortality [RR-0.65 (0.20, 2.51)] with decreased risk for new hemorrhages in the fibrinolysis arm [RR-0.48 (0.30, 0.78)] while in fibrinolysis vs standard medical treatment, the trend was also a reduced mortality [RR-0.83 (0.65, 1.05)] with favourable outcome [RR-1.20 (1.00, 1.44)] and higher risk of new bleeds (RR-2.27 [1.23, 4.19]) but no significant difference in brain infections (RR-1.34 [0.24, 7.49]).

Conclusion

Local fibrinolytic therapy in ICH and IVH decreases mortality and improves the clot resolution but shows no substantial gain in the good functional outcome and has increased risk of new hemorrhages. Further studies required to consolidate evidence for their efficacy and safety.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Neurosurgery: X
World Neurosurgery: X Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
44 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信