Effect of antiplatelet therapy after COVID-19 diagnosis: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

by Hong Duo, Mengying Jin, Yanwei Yang, Rewaan Baheti, Yujia Feng, Zirui Fu, Yuyue Jiang, Lanzhuoying Zheng, Jing Wan, Huaqin Pan

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to thrombotic disease in the venous and arterial circulations.

Based on the current debate on antiplatelet therapy in COVID-19 patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of antiplatelet treatments. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on February 1, 2023, and only included Randomized clinical trials. The study followed PRISMA guidelines and used Random-effects models to estimate the pooled percentage and its 95% CI.

Five unique eligible studies were included, covering 17,950 patients with COVID-19. The result showed no statistically significant difference in the relative risk of all-cause death in antiplatelet therapy versus non-antiplatelet therapy (RR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.83–1.05, P = 0.26, I² = 32%). Compared to no antiplatelet therapy, patients who received antiplatelet therapy had a significantly increased relative risk of major bleeding (RR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09–3.00, P = 0.02, I² = 16%). The sequential analysis suggests that more RCTs are needed to draw more accurate conclusions. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the use of antiplatelet agents exhibited no significant benefit on all-cause death, and the upper bound of the confidence interval on all-cause death (RR 95% CI, 0.83–1.05) suggested that it was unlikely to be a substantiated harm risk associated with this treatment. However, evidence from all RCTs suggested a high risk of major bleeding in antiplatelet agent treatments.

According to the results of our sequential analysis, there is not enough evidence available to support or negate the use of antiplatelet agents in COVID-19 cases. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large, randomized clinical trials are needed.

Effect of different surgical techniques on postoperative wound infection in patients with uterine prolapse: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

The assumption is that a number of controlled trials have been conducted to assess the impact of uterus retaining or hysterectomy on wound and haemorrhage, but there is no indication as to which method would be more beneficial for wound healing. This research is intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the availability of wound healing in case studies of both operative methods. From inception to October 2023, four databases were reviewed. The odds ratio (OR) and the mean difference (MD) for both groups were computed with a random effect model, as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. A total of five studies were carried out in the overall design and enrolled 16 972 patients. No statistical significance was found in the rate of postoperative wound infection among the two treatments (OR,1.46; 95% CI,0.66,3.22 p = 0.35); The rates of bleeding after surgery did not differ significantly from one procedure to another (OR,1.41; 95% CI,0.91,2.17 p = 0.12); two studies demonstrated no statistical significance for the rate of incisional hernia after surgery (OR,2.58; 95% CI,0.37,18.05 p = 0.34). Our findings indicate that there is a similar risk between uterine preservation and hysterectomies for the incidence of wound infection, haemorrhage and protrusion of incision.