↓ Skip to main content

Antifibrinolytic therapy for preventing oral bleeding in people on anticoagulants undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antifibrinolytic therapy for preventing oral bleeding in people on anticoagulants undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012293.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eveline T Engelen, Roger EG Schutgens, Evelien P Mauser-Bunschoten, Robert JJ van Es, Karin PM van Galen

Abstract

Individuals on continuous treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at increased risk of bleeding complications during and after oral or dental procedures. Anticoagulant treatment is preferably continued at the same dose, since dose reduction or discontinuation of treatment is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. The use of haemostatic measures during or after the procedure (or both) could enable continuation of the oral anticoagulant treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy of antifibrinolytic agents for preventing bleeding complications in people on oral anticoagulants undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Additional searches were performed using ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the CINAHL database of nursing and allied health services, the open access ProQuest dissertation database, papers and reports from the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) and abstract books from annual scientific conferences.Date of last search: 04 January 2018. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people on continuous treatment with VKAs or DOACs undergoing oral or dental procedures using antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid (TXA) or epsilon aminocaproic acid) to prevent perioperative bleeding compared to no intervention or usual care with or without placebo. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all identified articles. Full texts were obtained from potentially relevant abstracts and two authors independently assessed these for inclusion based of the selection criteria. A third author verified trial eligibility. Two authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using standardized forms. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. No eligible trials in people on continuous treatment with DOACs undergoing oral or dental procedures were identified.Three randomised trials and one quasi-randomised trial (follow-up in all was seven days) in people on continuous treatment with VKAs were included with a total of 253 participants (mean age 60 years). Two trials published in 1989 and 1993 compared the antifibrinolytic agent TXA with placebo in people using VKAs. Two other trials were published in 1999 and 2015 and compared TXA with gelatin sponge and sutures, and dry gauze compression, respectively. In all included trials, those who were treated with VKAs had international normalised ratio (INR) values within the therapeutic range and TXA was applied locally, not systemically.The two trials from 1989 and 1993 comparing TXA with placebo showed a statistically significant beneficial effect regarding the number of major postoperative bleeding episodes requiring intervention, with a pooled risk difference (RD) of -0.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.36 to -0.14) (128 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). For the two trials that compared TXA with either gelatin sponge and sutures or with dry gauze compression, there was no difference between the TXA and the standard care group, RD 0.02 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.11) (125 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). The combined RD of all included trials was -0.13 (95% CI -0.30 to 0.05) (moderate-quality evidence). There were no side effects of antifibrinolytic therapy that required treatment withdrawal (128 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Despite heterogeneity between trials with respect to the different haemostatic measures used in the control groups, the trials were comparable regarding design and baseline participant characteristics.Overall, we considered the risk of bias to be low in the trials comparing TXA with placebo and moderate in the trials comparing TXA with alternative haemostatic measures. Based on the results of this Cochrane Review, there seems to be a beneficial effect of locally applied TXA in preventing oral bleeding in people on continuous treatment with VKAs undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions. However, the small number of identified randomised controlled trials, the relatively small number of participants included in the trials and the differences in standard therapy and treatment regimens between trials, do not allow us to conclude definite efficacy of antifibrinolytic therapy in this population.We were unable to identify any eligible trials in people on continuous treatment with DOACs undergoing oral or dental procedures. Therefore, a beneficial effect of antifibrinolytic therapy can currently only be assumed based on data from the people using VKAs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 22%
Student > Master 24 20%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 26 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2018.
All research outputs
#935,686
of 13,810,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,857
of 10,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,389
of 272,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#74
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,810,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.