Американское общество гирудотерапии

Dabigatran in real-world atrial fibrillation. Meta-analysis of observational comparison studies with vitamin K antagonists.

Review published in Thrombosis and haemostasis (2016)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisКлинические исследованияРазработка лекарственных препаратовCarmo et al. · Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2016

Abstract

In the RE-LY clinical trial, dabigatran presented a better effectiveness/safety profile when compared to warfarin. However, clinical trials are not very representative of the real-world setting. We aimed to assess the performance of dabigatran in real-world patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational comparison studies with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases until November 2015 and selected studies according to the following criteria: observational study performed with nonvalvular AF patients; reporting adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of clinical events in a follow-up period; for dabigatran 75 mg, 110 mg or 150 mg versus VKA. Twenty studies were selected which included 711,298 patients, 210,279 of which were treated with dabigatran and the remaining 501,019 with VKA. Ischaemic stroke incidence was of 1.65 /100 patient-years for dabigatran and 2.85/100 patient-years for VKA (HR 0.86, 95 % confidence interval of 0.74-0.99). Major bleeding rate was 3.93/100 patient-years for dabigatran and 5.61/100 patient-years for VKA (0.79, 0.69-0.89). Risk of mortality (0.73, 0.61-0.87) and intracranial bleeding (0.45, 0.38-0.52) were significantly lower in patients treated with dabigatran when compared to patients on VKA. Risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding was significantly higher in patients treated with dabigatran (1.13, 1.00-1.28). No significant difference was observed in risk of myocardial infarction (0.99, 0.89-1.11). In this combined analysis of real-world observational comparison studies with VKA, dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of ischaemic stroke, major bleeding, intracranial bleeding and mortality, higher risk of GI bleeding and a similar risk of myocardial infarction.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationBenzimidazolesDabigatranHemorrhageHumansMyocardial InfarctionObservational Studies as TopicStrokeVitamin K

Резюме

In the RE-LY clinical trial, dabigatran presented a better effectiveness/safety profile when compared to warfarin. However, clinical trials are not very representative of the real-world setting.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 observational comparison studies evaluated dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists in 711,298 real-world patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, finding that dabigatran was associated with significantly lower risks of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and mortality, along with a significantly higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding and no significant difference in myocardial infarction risk. The abstract does not mention hirudin, leeches, hirudotherapy, direct thrombin inhibition, or any connection to the leech secretome. There is no defensible leech link in this article.

Цитирование

Dabigatran in real-world atrial fibrillation. Meta-analysis of observational comparison studies with vitamin K antagonists.

Carmo et al. · Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2016

Связанный клинический контекст

Добавлено в библиотеку ASH: May 28, 2026 · Последнее обновление сайта: June 18, 2026

Этот сайт предоставляет образовательную информацию и не является медицинской консультацией, диагнозом или рекомендацией по лечению. Гирудотерапия сопряжена с клинически значимыми рисками и должна проводиться только квалифицированными клиницистами в рамках институционально утверждённых протоколов. Разрешение FDA 510(k) для медицинских пиявок ограничено определёнными показаниями; обсуждения исследовательского и нелицензионного применения отмечены соответствующим образом. Для индивидуальных медицинских рекомендаций обратитесь к квалифицированному медицинскому специалисту.