Objective Bivalirudin has been suggested as an alternative to heparin for anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nevertheless, there is limited evidence about the benefit of bivalirudin in ECMO patients compared with heparin. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on clinical outcomes in patients receiving ECMO. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception up to 1 April 2022 for cohort studies and randomized controlled trials comparing bivalirudin versus heparin in patients who received ECMO. The primary outcome was short-term death. Secondary outcomes included thrombotic events and bleeding events. Results We selected 12 retrospective cohort studies with 1232 ECMO patients focusing on bivalirudin anticoagulation (n = 497) versus heparin anticoagulation (n = 735). Two hundred and one of 497 patients (40.4%) in the bivalirudin group versus 350 of 735 patients (47.6%) in the heparin group did not survive to hospital discharge. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease in-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79–1.13; p = 0.546). Fifty-seven of 374 patients (15.2%) in the bivalirudin versus 99 of 381 patients (26.0%) in the heparin group suffered from thrombotic events. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease the rate of thrombotic events for patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45–1.35; p = 0.378). However, bivalirudin anticoagulation significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events compared to the heparin group (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25–0.95; p = 0.035). Conclusions Compared with heparin anticoagulation, bivalirudin did not decrease the rates of short-term mortality and thrombotic events, but reduced the incidence of bleeding events in patients receiving ECMO.
Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), distress in the pelvis, infertile, and stressed feelings are all indications of fibroids in the uterus, the most prevalent type of benign uterine tumor. Nearly one-third of women with fibroid in the uterus seek medical help. The goal of this analysis is for a better understanding of the mechanisms that relate fibroids to these symptoms and to assess several treatment options, including the application of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist. We compiled the commonest as well as appropriate studies on the most common symptom of fibroids, as well as medicinal and surgical treatment options. Those who said they used GnRH antagonists orally were probed further. The underlying mechanisms myoma-caused menorrhagia as well as sterility were examined since those have been critical to understand the detailed mechanism as well as the targeted treatment modality. New treatments are determined by the amount, dimension cum localization of fibroids, and the women’s age and also her choice on future childbirth. Myomas have considerable economic consequences with respect to direct expenditure, wage losses, as well as difficulties. In this context, medical, surgical, and nonsurgical techniques were examined. The novelty applied in this research article is the implementation of the GnRH antagonist-based methodology for the removal of fibroids in the uterine layer. The methodology is superior to the existing techniques for the treatment of fibroids in the uterine membrane. Novel medical techniques including GnRH antagonists were investigated and proved to be a viable new option. Alternatives to surgical-surgical modalities are desperately needed, specifically for those who are looking forward for future childbirth. GnRH antagonists have been shown to effectively alleviate the symptoms of fibroids and welcome new techniques for myoma treatment.
The purpose of this study was to explore the establishment of an auxiliary scoring model for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE) complicated with atrial fibrillation (AF) based on random forest (RF) and its application effect. A retrospective analysis was performed on the general data, underlying diseases, laboratory indicators, and cardiac indicators of 100 patients with APE admitted to our hospital from 2018 to 2021. The occurrence of atrial fibrillation in patients with pulmonary embolism was taken as a categorical variable, and the general data, underlying diseases, laboratory indicators, and cardiac indicators were taken as input variables. Then, the risk auxiliary scoring model for patients with APE complicated with AF was established based on RF and logistic regression. Finally, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, accuracy, F1 value, and the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve were used to evaluate the predictive value of the models. After statistical analysis, the optimal node value was 3 and the optimal number of decision trees was 500 in the RF model. The importance of predictors in descending order were Hcy, diabetes mellitus, FT3 level, UA level, left atrial diameter, hypertension, and smoking history. The prediction accuracy of the RF model was 0.934, sensitivity 0.966, specificity 0.876, recall rate 0.9660, accuracy 0.934, and F1 value 0.950. The logistic regression model prediction accuracy was 0.816, sensitivity 0.915, specificity 0.125, recall rate 0.902, accuracy 0.811, and F1 value 0.896. The RF model and logistic regression prediction model AUC values were 0.984 and 0.883, respectively. From this, we conclude that the RF model was better than the logistic regression model in predicting AF in APE patients. So, the RF model had the clinical application value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.