‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات metaanalysis. إظهار كافة الرسائل
‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات metaanalysis. إظهار كافة الرسائل

الأحد، 2 سبتمبر 2012

Effect of systemic steroids on post-tonsillectomy bleeding and reinterventions: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Effect of systemic steroids on post-tonsillectomy bleeding and reinterventions: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials | BMJ

Menu

Search BMJ Group Search BMJ Group   Journals Jobs Education Decision support Quality improvement Community

BMJ Group

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients

About BMJ Group Customer Service Subscriptions & Sales Working for BMJ Group BMJ Media Centre BMJ Group Awards Advertising & Sponsorship Rights & Licensing Affinity & Society Publishing Online learning BMJ Learning High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications BMJ Masterclasses BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

BMJ Learning BMJ Portfolio BMJ Masterclasses Clinical Leadership Programme Diabetes Qualifications and Courses onExamination Decision support and clinical reference BMJ Evidence Centre

The BMJ Evidence Centre builds evidence into practice, to support improvements in the consistency and quality of health care.

Best Practice Clinical Evidence Evidence Updates Best Health Action Sets Informatica Systems Informatica Systems delivers performance management systems and innovative software solutions to primary care. Learn more

Audit + Contract + Health Checks FrontDesk BMJ Quality

The latest news, research, events, opinion and guidance related to quality and safety in health care.

The 2013 event will take place in London from 16th- 19th April 2013. Find out more

BMJ Quality BMJ Quality and Safety International Forum on Quality and Safety in Healthcare BMJ

The flagship general medical journal, published since 1840, updated daily online, weekly in print and on the iPad.

BMJ BMJ Journals

BMJ Journals division publishes over 40 journals across a broad range of specialties.

BMJ Journals studentBMJ

An international medical journal written for students by students.

Student BMJ Jobs BMJ Careers

BMJ Careers makes it easy for you to find the right job with the latest healthcare vacancies, upcoming careers fairs, advice on choosing the right specialty, pay and working conditions.

19-20 October 2012 at the Business Design Centre in Islington, London. Register here

BMJ Careers Jobs and vacancies at BMJ Group BMJ Careers Fair Community

Join the discussions on our community site doc2doc or our social pages

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

doc2doc Follow BMJ Group on Twitter BMJ Group on Facebook BMJ Group Awards Subscribe My account

Update my details

Manage my emails

BMA Members Sign in Username: * Password: * Forgot your sign in details?BMA membersAthens or your organisation BMJ Helping doctors make better decisions Search bmj.com:   Advanced search Home Research Education News Comment Multimedia Specialties Archive Search all BMJ research articles:   From18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec To18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Limit by AllResearchMethods and reporting Our online table of contents is updated at least twice each day. Read all articles published in the last 7 days. You can use bmj.com to help you with your continuing medical education. Find out about CME/CPD credits for BMJ articles Keep up to date with cardiology: Access the latest cardiovascular medicine resources from across BMJ Group. OPEN ACCESS: All research articles are freely available online, with no word limit. Find out more about the BMJ's open access policy. Submit your paper. Find out how study types differ in our How to read a paper section. The truth about sports drinks: Find out more about the joint BMJ and BBC Panorama investigation into the evidence base behind many health claims.

Research Effect of systemic steroids on post-tonsillectomy bleeding and reinterventions: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5389 (Published 28 August 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e5389 Clinical trials (epidemiology) Ear, nose and throat/otolaryngology Otolaryngology / ENT Epidemiologic studies More topics

Haematology (incl blood transfusion) Internet Fewer topics

Article Related content Read responses (1) Article metrics Jennifer Plante, fellow1, Alexis F Turgeon, assistant professor12, Ryan Zarychanski, assistant professor34, François Lauzier, assistant professor125, Louise Vigneault, lecturer1, Lynne Moore, assistant professor26, Amélie Boutin, research assistant2, Dean A Fergusson, associate professor7
1Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Université Laval, Centre Hospitalier Affilié Universitaire de Québec (CHA), Enfant-Jésus Hospital, Québec City, QC, Canada, G1J 1Z4
2CHA Research Center (Enfant-Jésus Hospital), Trauma-Emergency-Critical Care Medicine Unit, Université Laval
3Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
4Departments of Internal Medicine and of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg
5Department de Medicine, Université Laval
6Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université Laval
7Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, CanadaCorrespondence to: A F Turgeon alexis.turgeon{at}fmed.ulaval.caAccepted 25 July 2012AbstractObjective To evaluate the risk of postoperative bleeding and reintervention with the use of systemic steroids in patients undergoing tonsillectomy.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Intute, Biosis, OpenSIGLE, National Technical Information Service, and Google Scholar were searched. References from reviews identified in the search and from included studies were scanned.

Review methods Randomised controlled trials comparing the administration of systemic steroids during tonsillectomy with any other comparator were eligible. Primary outcome was postoperative bleeding. Secondary outcomes were the rate of admission for a bleeding episode, reintervention for a bleeding episode, blood transfusion, and mortality.

Results Of 1387 citations identified, 29 randomised controlled trials (n=2674) met all eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented a low risk of bias, but none was specifically designed to systematically identify postoperative bleeding. Administration of systemic steroids did not significantly increase the incidence of post-tonsillectomy bleeding (29 studies, n=2674 patients, odds ratio 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.40), I²=0%). We observed a significant increase in the incidence of operative reinterventions for bleeding episodes in patients who received systemic steroids (12, n=1178, 2.27 (1.03 to 4.99), I²=0%). No deaths were reported. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the findings.

Conclusions Although systemic steroids do not appear to increase bleeding events after tonsillectomy, their use is associated with a raised incidence of operative reinterventions for bleeding episodes, which may be related to increased severity of bleeding events. Systemic steroids should be used with caution, and the risks and benefits weighed, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after tonsillectomy before further research is performed to clarify their condition of use.

IntroductionTonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy is one of the most commonly performed ear, nose, and throat surgeries worldwide.1 2 After this intervention, many patients have nausea, vomiting, and pain.3 4 Without prophylaxis, the reported incidence of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing tonsillectomy ranges from 40% to 73%.5 6 7 8 Systemic steroids have been shown to be as efficient as 5-HT3 antagonists and droperidol in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting.8 Their use is increasing and currently recommended in recent guidelines of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation for tonsillectomy in children.9 10 Furthermore, some studies suggest that steroids could be associated with an earlier return to a regular diet after tonsillectomy.2 11

A recent randomised controlled trial comparing different doses of dexamethasone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after tonsillectomy showed an increased incidence of postoperative bleeding and reoperation due to bleeding in the steroid group.12 Previous observational studies have also reported this association.13 14 A recent meta-analysis on dexamethasone and tonsillectomy bleeding found no increased risk of postoperative bleeding with the use of steroids.15 However, this review was not exhaustive and did not evaluate clinically significant outcomes such as operative reinterventions.

Considering the frequent use and potential harm of systemic steroids to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting after tonsillectomy, and the existence of effective alternatives such as 5-HT3 antagonists,10 we conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials to evaluate the risk of postoperative bleeding and of operative reinterventions after systemic steroids use in patients undergoing tonsillectomy.

MethodsDesign and search strategyWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. A search strategy was developed for Medline (OVID, 1950-March 2011), Embase (OVID, 1947-March 2011), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to March 2011) (web appendix). We identified randomised controlled trials by incorporating validated filters for Medline16 and Embase.17 We also did a similar search of Scopus, the Web of Science, and Intute databases, as well as OpenSIGLE, Google Scholar, and the National Technical Information Service databases for the grey literature. Relevant abstracts and conference proceedings were identified using the Biosis database. References of pertinent reviews identified in the search were scanned to identify potentially relevant trials. Two reviewers (JP, LV) independently screened all studies for eligibility by titles and abstracts, and by full text publications if needed. A third reviewer (AFT) was consulted in instances when consensus could not be reached between the two reviewers. At the end of this selection process, Google Scholar was used to identify authors that cited any of the included studies. Additional studies identified by this method were then considered for eligibility.

Study eligibilityAll randomised controlled trials of tonsillectomy (any indications) that compared the administration of any systemic steroids to any comparator (other intervention, placebo, or no intervention) were included, provided that bleeding or the absence of bleeding episodes (of any severity) were also reported or could be obtained from authors. We excluded studies including patients with bleeding disorders, patients on chronic steroid therapy, or patients in whom steroids were locally injected or sprayed on the tonsillar bed. Eligibility was not restricted by language, type of publication (for example, abstracts or full publications), or patients’ age.

The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative bleeding from the tonsillar fossa (any type of bleeding and of any severity). The secondary outcomes were the incidence of admission for bleeding episodes, operative reinterventions for bleeding episodes, red blood cells transfusion, and mortality. We defined an operative reintervention for a bleeding episode as any surgical procedure performed in the operating room or in the emergency department to stop bleeding from the surgical site. Patients requiring a reintervention in the operating room were considered being admitted to hospital after the procedure, and were included in the meta-analysis of admissions for bleeding episodes.

Data abstractionWe developed a data abstraction form to standardise the data collection process, which was pilot tested on a landmark publication.12 For comparison purposes, all steroid doses were converted in dexamethasone equivalents. We converted fixed doses to mg/kg using the mean weight, when the data were provided. If weight was not provided, we used a standard weight of 60 kg for women and 70 kg for men in adults, and weight charts for children to estimate whether the mean dose was lower or greater than 0.5 mg/kg. Bleeding events that occurred on postoperative day zero, or within the first 24 hours, were considered as primary bleeding episodes. Episodes beyond that period of time were defined as secondary bleeding episodes. We contacted the corresponding authors of included studies if data were missing for bleeding episodes, admission, reintervention, red blood cells transfusion, or mortality, or if the methods required clarification. Two reviewers (JP, LV) performed the data collection process independently, and a third reviewer (AFT) resolved any discrepancies. A translator was consulted for studies published in languages other than English or French.

Risk of bias assessmentThe risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers (JP, LV) using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool.16 Since the objective of the current review was to identify bleeding complications occurring in the acute and subacute perioperative period, studies with considerable numbers of patients lost to follow-up, as well as those with a short follow-up period (<24 h) were considered to have an increased risk of bias because of their potential for missed bleeding events.16 For this reason, we assigned an “unclear” overall risk of bias to studies with a proportion of lost to follow-up greater than 10% (incomplete outcome data).

Data synthesisData were analysed using Cochrane Review Manager version 5.0 (Cochrane Collaboration) and summarised using Peto fixed effects models, appropriate for meta-analysis of rare events.18 We applied a continuity correction of 0.5 to studies reporting no event in both groups. All data were dichotomous, and associations were presented using odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. An odds ratio greater than 1 implies greater risk in the steroid group, and an odds ratio less than 1 implies greater risk in the control group. We assessed the presence of heterogeneity using the I² statistic, which estimates the percentage of variation between study results that is due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error.19 We did sensitivity analyses, based on clinical (adults v children, cold or combined v hot dissection, high [>0.5 mg/kg] v low [=0.5 mg/kg] dose steroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration, type of comparator, and timing of bleeding) and methodological (risk of bias, blinding, sample size, and short [=24 h] v long [>24 h] follow-up) characteristics, to understand potential sources of heterogeneity and to evaluate the robustness of the results. Potential publication bias was assessed using funnel plot analyses.20

Quality of evidenceWe graded the quality of evidence for the three main outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach 21 with GRADEpro software (version 3.2 for Windows. Jan Brozek, Andrew Oxman, Holger Schünemann, 2008).

ResultsSearch resultsWe retrieved a total of 1387 citations (fig 1?). Fifty one studies were considered potentially eligible. Of these studies, 16 were excluded because they did not report bleeding episodes nor admission or reintervention, and this information could not be obtained despite attempts to contact the authors. The remaining excluded publications did not meet all inclusion criteria.22 23 24 25 26 27 We included 29 studies in this systematic review,12 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 representing 2674 patients (table 1?).

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 1 Flow diagram of studies

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 1 Characteristics of included studies in meta-analysis

Study characteristicsOf the included studies, 24 were published in English, and one each in Turkish,34 Korean,39 Spanish,54 Chinese,29 and Hebrew.38 Ten studies were conducted in North America,30 31 32 33 35 40 47 53 54 55 12 in Asia,28 29 34 37 38 39 41 45 46 49 50 51 four in Europe,12 42 43 52 two in Australia,36 48 and one in Africa.44 All studies were presented as full publications. In two studies, dexamethasone was provided by pharmaceutical companies,12 32 and one of these studies specified that the funding organisation had no role in the design or conduct of the study.12

Nineteen studies were performed in children, six in adults only, and four included both children and adults. Twenty four studies compared the effects of systemic steroids with placebo12 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 40 41 43 46 47 48 50 51 53 54 55 or no intervention (neither a placebo nor any intervention in the control group).38 39 45 Six studies compared systemic steroids with other treatments (tropisetron, ondansetron, droperidol, piroxicam, bilateral glossopharyngeal nerve block with bupivacaine, or paracetamol).

Dexamethasone was used in 28 studies, while prednisolone was administered in the remaining study.48 In 18 studies, the dexamethasone dose was calculated according to the patient’s weight (mg/kg) and varied from 0.05 mg/kg 12 to 1.0 mg/kg. In the remaining studies, the steroid dose was fixed29 31 40 42 43 50 52 55; based on the patient’s body surface (mg/m²)32; or either fixed or based on weight (mg/kg), according to patient’s age.48 49 Systemic steroids were administrated as a single dose, or repeated doses over a specific period of time: 16 h,54 three days,40 four days,29 seven days,48 or eight days.52 In these studies, the total dose was taken into account.

In most studies, the main outcomes were the effect of steroids on pain,12 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 nausea and vomiting,12 28 30 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 and oral intake 12 28 30 32 35 37 38 39 41 43 45 46 47 48 50 51 53 55 after tonsillectomy. Other main outcome measures of included studies were the effect of steroids on oedema, fever, trismus, halitosis, and level of activity.

Twenty six studies reported data for post-tonsillectomy bleeding. Through private communications with authors, we obtained details pertaining to the severity of and to interventions related to the bleeding episodes for three of these studies,40 42 53 and obtained unpublished data on bleeding episodes for three additional studies.43 44 49 Eight studies reported no postoperative bleeding episodes or mentioned uneventful surgeries.29 37 43 44 48 49 51 54 Among studies reporting bleeding episodes, 18 specified the timing of occurrence,12 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 39 41 42 45 46 47 50 52 53 nine reported the need for admission due to bleeding,12 28 30 31 35 46 47 50 53 and 12 reported data for reintervention.12 30 32 34 39 40 42 46 47 50 52 55 No study reported transfusion of red blood cells or mortality.

A clear definition of post-tonsillectomy bleeding was presented in two of 29 studies.12 42 Eight studies stated that bleeding episodes were going to be reported,12 28 31 32 33 35 37 41 while six clearly questioned their patients about postoperative bleeding or provided instructions in the event of unexpected bleeding.12 28 35 37 41 42 No study described a systematic method to evaluate postoperative bleeding.

Validity assessmentA low risk of bias was attributed to seven studies 33 35 36 40 41 42 50 (table 2?). Fifteen studies had an adequate sequence generation,12 30 31 33 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 50 51 52 54 and 15 had an appropriate method of allocation concealment.12 30 33 35 36 40 41 42 43 47 48 50 52 53 55 Six studies were not blinded,28 38 39 45 46 49 and blinding was unclear in another study.34 One study was terminated early because of an increased incidence of post-tonsillectomy bleeding in the intervention group.12 Fourteen studies 12 31 32 33 36 38 40 41 42 43 47 52 53 55 reported losses to follow-up that varied from 2.7%12 to 36.1%,43 and losses to follow-up were unclear in four studies.29 39 45 48 Eight studies had a follow-up period of 24 h or less.30 34 37 44 45 46 49 51 Two studies reported performing an intention to treat analysis.12 40 Five studies did not report all outcomes stated in their methods.32 45 46 51 54

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 2 Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment of included studies

Post-tonsillectomy bleeding episodesThe administration of steroids did not increase the incidence of bleeding events after tonsillectomy, based on pooled data from the 29 studies (n=2674, odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence intervals 0.66 to 1.40, I²=0%), of which eight did not observe any bleeding episodes29 37 43 44 48 49 51 54 (fig 2?). Sensitivity analyses including trials with low risk of bias, observers blinded to the intervention, larger population, or longer follow-up periods yielded similar results (table 3?). Results were also comparable regardless of the population age, surgical technique, steroid dose, or concomitant administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. When we analysed primary and secondary bleeding events separately, we observed no increase in bleeding incident with the administration of steroids.

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 2 Post-tonsillectomy bleeding. For Peto odds ratio, continuity correction k=0.5 was used when there was no event in both groups

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 3 Sensitivity analysis of post-tonsillectomy bleeding outcome

Hospital admissionSeventeen studies reported data for admission12 28 30 31 35 46 47 50 53 or reinterventions34 36 39 40 42 45 52 55 that required admission (fig 3?). The incidence of admission due to a bleeding episode did not increase in the steroid group (17 studies, n=1722 patients, odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 2.00, I²=19%). All sensitivity analyses accorded with this finding (data not shown).

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 3 Admission for post-tonsillectomy bleeding

Reintervention for a bleeding episodeThe incidence of operative reintervention for bleeding episodes was significantly increased in the steroid group (12 studies, n=1178; odds ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 4.99, I2=0%; fig 4?). The average incidence of reintervention due to bleeding in patients receiving steroids was 3.0% versus 1.5% in controls. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the incidence of reintervention for bleeding episodes among different subgroups (table 4?). We observed a significant increase of reinterventions in children (eight studies12 30 32 34 39 46 47 55; 3.43, 1.29 to 9.13, I²=0%) but not in adults (four40 42 50 52; 1.07, 0.29 to 4.03, I²=0%). A dose effect was not observed. We found an increased incidence of reinterventions among patients receiving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (three12 39 52; 4.10, 0.99 to 16.97, I²=0%). No significant association was seen among double blinded studies (nine12 30 32 40 42 47 50 52 55; 2.22, 0.95 to 5.18, I2=0%) and those with longer follow-up periods (nine12 32 39 40 42 47 50 52 55; 2.16, 0.92 to 5.06, I2=0%). In each case, the incidence of reinterventions for bleeding episodes was increased in the steroid group compared with the control group without reaching significance (P=0.07 for double blinding, P=0.08 for longer follow-up periods), although the results suggested a strong trend. Studies with low risk of bias showed no clear association between steroids use and the incidence of operative reintervention (three studies40 42 50; 0.91, 0.22 to 3.68, I²=0%).

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 4 Reintervention for post-tonsillectomy bleeding. For Peto odds ratio, continuity correction k=0.5 was used when there was no event in both groups

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 4 Sensitivity analysis of operative reintervention to treat post-tonsillectomy bleeding

Allogenic transfusion and mortalityNone of the included studies reported transfusion of red blood cells or mortality.

Publication bias and quality of evidence We evaluated the presence of potential publication bias using a funnel plot of intervention effect estimates versus the standard error for studies presenting data for bleeding episodes. Visual inspection of the funnel plot did not reveal evidence of publication bias (web figure). According to the GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence for bleeding and admission outcomes after tonsillectomy was low; however, the association between post-tonsillectomy reintervention and systemic steroids was considered to be of high quality (table 5?).

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 5 Summary of evidence for key outcomes

Discussion In this systematic review, we did not observe an increased incidence of postoperative bleeding events after perioperative administration of systemic steroids in patients undergoing tonsillectomy. However, we did observe a significant increase in the incidence of operative reinterventions needed to manage clinically significant bleeding episodes in patients who received systemic steroids. The quality of the evidence according to the GRADE approach was high for this specific outcome. This raised incidence of reinterventions was significantly increased in children.

Strengths and limitations if the studyAn important limitation of our study concerned the data available within included publications. None of the included studies was designed to evaluate adverse complications of steroids use after tonsillectomy, and no study systematically screened for bleeding events after tonsillectomy. Therefore, the incidence of this complication could have been systematically underestimated. Moreover, only two studies presented a clear definition of post-tonsillectomy bleeding. Bleeding episodes of varying severity may not have received equal consideration across all studies, which could lead to an underestimation of overall bleeding episodes. This could explain why we did not observe a significant association between steroids use and bleeding events, while we did observe an association with reintervention for bleeding events.

On the other hand, the inclusion in meta-analyses of studies reporting no bleeding event in either group using a continuity correction could have underestimated the association. The majority of included studies were of limited methodological quality, and many studies had substantial numbers of patients who were lost to follow-up. These factors provide further concern that bleeding episodes may have been missed. A significant proportion of studies had a very limited follow-up period precluding the evaluation of the incidence of secondary bleeding episodes. Since bleeding episodes are relatively rare events, unreported episodes could greatly affect the study results.

Despite of known limitations, our systematic review had important strengths. Firstly, the extensive search strategy using different databases, including the grey literature and conference proceedings, allowed us to retrieve a comprehensive list of the studies performed on the topic. Importantly, the decision to evaluate the incidence of reinterventions for bleeding episodes, as opposed to only bleeding episodes, allowed us to summarise the effect of clinically significant bleeding events with greater fidelity. We believe that operative reintervention for bleeding episodes represents a more reliable and clinically meaningful endpoint than bleeding episodes. Severe enough bleeding events to require operative reintervention are less likely to have been overlooked and may therefore represent the optimal clinical outcome to understand the impact of systemic steroids in tonsillectomy.

Comparison with other studiesOverall, the mean incidence of post-tonsillectomy bleeding events observed in our systematic review was 4.4%, which is consistent with the current literature.56 57 58 59 60 Our results on postoperative bleeding are in accordance with a recent systematic review.15 However, this previous meta-analysis identified half the number of studies as compared with our study, and did not evaluate other clinically significant outcomes such as operative reinterventions for bleeding and hospital admission. The increased incidence of reintervention observed in a recent landmark study by Czarnetzki and colleagues12 was also seen in our pooled analysis. But our systematic review did not confirm the higher incidence of bleeding episodes associated with perioperative steroids use in tonsillectomy procedures, as observed in this trial.

The increased incidence of reinterventions associated with steroids occurred in the absence of increased bleeding events, and thus probably represents an increased severity of bleeding when steroids are administered. Although no study specified indications to undergo a reintervention in the event of bleeding, this procedure usually suggests that the bleeding was significant enough to require an emergency procedure. Bleeding events requiring reintervention are more likely to be noticed and reported in a publication as opposed to minor events. Therefore, reinterventions to manage bleeding events may be a more objective and reliable outcome to assess clinically significant bleeding events after tonsillectomy.

Conclusions and policy implicationsWe did not observe an increased incidence of postoperative bleeding events following administration of systemic steroids during tonsillectomy. We did, however, observe a significant increase in the incidence of operative reintervention associated with the use of steroids, which may be related to an increased severity of a given bleeding episode. Considering the potential for harm and the availability of other drugs to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, we recommend that steroids should be used with caution; risks and benefits must be weighted; and steroids should not be used routinely for such purposes, especially in children. Further studies should be designed to answer concerns about the safety of the perioperative use of steroids in tonsillectomy procedures.

What is already known on this topicTonsillectomy is one of the most commonly performed ear, nose, and throat surgeries worldwide, but has a high underlying risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Systemic use of steroids to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting is increasing, and recommended in addition to the use of 5-HT3 antagonists in recent guidelines

A recent study has linked such use of steroids with an increased incidence of postoperative bleeding after tonsillectomy

What this study addsOverall, the risk of postoperative bleeding did not increase after perioperative administration of systemic steroids in patients undergoing tonsillectomy

However, the incidence of reinterventions for bleeding episodes did increase overall with steroids, and especially among children, which could represent a greater severity of bleeding associated with use of steroids

Systemic steroids should be used with caution; risks and benefits must be weighted, and steroids should not be used routinely to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting after tonsillectomy, especially in children

NotesCite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e5389

FootnotesWe thank Lucie Côté from the Library of the Centre Hospitalier Affilié Universitaire de Québec, Enfant-Jésus Hospital, for her help with the retrieval of study publications.

Contributors: JP, AFT, RZ, FL, LM, and DAF contributed to the conception and design of the study. JP and LV determined eligibility of search results and extracted data from included studies. JP, AB, and AFT performed and reviewed the analyses, and drafted the manuscript. All authors participated in the interpretation of the data and the critical review of the manuscript, and approved the version to be published. AFT is the guarantor.

Funding: This study was funded by personal funds. AFT and FL are recipients of a research career award from the Fonds de Recherche Québec-Santé. AFT and FL are supported by the Traumatology Research Consortium of the Fonds de Recherche Québec-Santé. LM and DAF are recipients of New Investigator Awards from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. RZ is a recipient of a randomised controlled trials mentorship award from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Ethical approval: This study did not require ethical approval.

Data sharing: No additional data available.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

References?Bolton CM, Myles PS, Nolan T, Sterne JA. Prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing tonsillectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth2006;97:593-604.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Steward DL, Grisel J, Meinzen-Derr J. Steroids for improving recovery following tonsillectomy in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2011:CD003997.?Randall DA, Hoffer ME. Complications of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1998;118:61-8.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Johnson LB, Elluru RG, Myer CM 3rd. Complications of adenotonsillectomy. Laryngoscope2002;112:35-6.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Litman RS, Wu CL, Catanzaro FA. Ondansetron decreases emesis after tonsillectomy in children. Anesth Analg1994;78:478-81.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Furst SR, Rodarte A. Prophylactic antiemetic treatment with ondansetron in children undergoing tonsillectomy. Anesthesiology1994;81:799-803.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Ferrari LR, Donlon JV. Metoclopramide reduces the incidence of vomiting after tonsillectomy in children. Anesth Analg1992;75:351-4.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Apfel CC, Korttila K, Abdalla M, Kerger H, Turan A, Vedder I, et al. A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med2004;350:2441-51.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Baugh RF, Archer SM, Mitchell RB, Rosenfeld RM, Amin R, Burns JJ, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2011;144:S1-30.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Gan TJ, Meyer TA, Apfel CC, Chung F, Davis PJ, Habib AS, et al. Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg2007;105:1615-28.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Goldman AC, Govindaraj S, Rosenfeld RM. A meta-analysis of dexamethasone use with tonsillectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2000;123:682-6.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Czarnetzki C, Elia N, Lysakowski C, Dumont L, Landis BN, Giger R, et al. Dexamethasone and risk of nausea and vomiting and postoperative bleeding after tonsillectomy in children: a randomized trial. JAMA2008;300:2621-30.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Collison PJ, Mettler B. Factors associated with post-tonsillectomy hemorrhage. Ear Nose Throat J2000;79:640-2.OpenUrlMedline?Macassey EA, Baguley C, Dawes P, Gray A. 15-year audit of post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage at Dunedin Hospital. ANZ J Surg2007;77:579-82.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Geva A, Brigger MT. Dexamethasone and Tonsillectomy Bleeding. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2011;144:838-43.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.?Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies in EMBASE. J Med Libr Assoc2006;94:41-7.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Yusuf S PR, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis1985;27:335-71.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ2003;327:557-60.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ2007;176:1091-6.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ2004;328:1490.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. Granisetron and dexamethasone provide more improved prevention of postoperative emesis than granisetron alone in children. Can J Anaesth1996;43:1229-32.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Gunter JB, McAuliffe JJ, Beckman EC, Wittkugel EP, Spaeth JP, Varughese AM. A factorial study of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and dexamethasone for emesis prophylaxis after adenotonsillectomy in children. Paediatr Anaesth2006;16:1153-65.OpenUrlMedline?Liechti M, Feurer R, Gross D, Schmitz A, Stutz K, Gerber A, et al. Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children following adenotonsillectomy, using tropisetron with or without low-dose dexamethasone. J Anesth2007;21:311-6.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?McAuliffe JJ, Gunter JB, Beckman EC. Dose-response relationship of dexamethasone and recovery after tonsillectomy in children [abstract 1228]. American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting; 2001 October. New Orleans, Anesthesiology, 2001.?McAuliffe JJ, Gunter JB, Beckman EC. A factorial study of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and dexamethasone for the prevention of emesis after tonsillectomy in children: model development [abstract 1225]. American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting; 2001 October. New Orleans, Anesthesiology, 2001.?Inci N, Basut O, Kasapoglu F, Coskun H. Management of pain after tonsillectomy: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg2009;19:1-8.OpenUrlMedline?Alajmi MA, Al Noumas HS, Al-Abdulhadi KA, Kavitha G. Steroids for reducing post-tonsillectomy morbidity. Kuwait Med J2008;40:211-5.OpenUrlWeb of Science?Ammar G, Wang Z. Effect of dexamethasone on post tonsillectomy pain. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi2009;23:936-8.OpenUrlMedline?April MM, Callan ND, Nowak DM, Hausdorff MA. The effect of intravenous dexamethasone in pediatric adenotonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1996;122:117-20.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Carr MM, Williams JG, Carmichael L, Nasser JG. Effect of steroids on posttonsillectomy pain in adults. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1999;125:1361-4.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Catlin FI, Grimes WJ. The effect of steroid therapy on recovery from tonsillectomy in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1991;117:649-52.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Giannoni C, White S, Enneking FK. Does dexamethasone with preemptive analgesia improve pediatric tonsillectomy pain? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2002;126:307-15.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Güne Y, Ünlügenç H, Gündüz M, Tuncer Ü, Akman H. [Comparison of the effects of ondansetron, dexamethasone and droperidol on the nausea and vomiting after tonsillectomy in children]. Çukurova Üniv T p Fak Derg2002;27:13-9.OpenUrl?Hanasono MM, Lalakea ML, Mikulec AA, Shepard KG, Wellis V, Messner AH. Perioperative steroids in tonsillectomy using electrocautery and sharp dissection techniques. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2004;130:917-21.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Holt R, Rask P, Coulthard KP, Sinclair M, Roberts G, Van Der Walt J, et al. Tropisetron plus dexamethasone is more effective than tropisetron alone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing tonsillectomy. Paediatr Anaesth2000;10:181-8.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Kaan MN, Odabasi O, Gezer E, Daldal A. The effect of preoperative dexamethasone on early oral intake, vomiting and pain after tonsillectomy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol2006;70:73-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Kaufmann M, Deutsch E, Hamouri H. The effect of steroid therapy on post adenotonsillectomy recovery. Harefuah2006;145:577-80.OpenUrlMedline?Kim M, Lee J, Lee S, Baik S, Chang B. The Effect of Dexamethasone in Tonsillectomy. Korean J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1998;41:783-7.OpenUrl?Lachance M, Lacroix Y, Audet N, Savard P, Thuot F. The use of dexamethasone to reduce pain after tonsillectomy in adults: a double-blind prospective randomized trial. Laryngoscope2008;118:232-6.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Malde A, Sonawane V, Jagtap S. Effect of dexamethasone on post tonsillectomy morbidities. Indian J Anaesth2005;49:202-7.OpenUrl?Mathiesen O, Jorgensen DG, Hilsted KL, Trolle W, Stjernholm P, Christiansen H, et al. Pregabalin and dexamethasone improves post-operative pain treatment after tonsillectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand2011;55:297-305.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?McKean S, Kochilas X, Kelleher R, Dockery M. Use of intravenous steroids at induction of anaesthesia for adult tonsillectomy to reduce post-operative nausea and vomiting and pain: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Clin Otolaryngol2006;31:36-40.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Mohamed SK, Ibraheem AS, Abdelraheem MG. Preoperative intravenous dexamethasone combined with glossopharyngeal nerve block: role in pediatric postoperative analgesia following tonsillectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2009;266:1815-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Mohammad L, Ahmad R, Latoo M, Qazl S, Wanl A. Post-tonsilelectomy morbidity—do steroids help. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2006;58:141-3.OpenUrl?Nawasreh O, Fraihat A, Maaita J. The effect of preoperative intravenous dexamethasone in pediatric adenotonsillectomy. J Bahrain Med Soc2000;12:130-3.OpenUrl?Ohlms LA, Wilder RT, Weston B. Use of intraoperative corticosteroids in pediatric tonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1995;121:737-42.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Palme CE, Tomasevic P, Pohl DV. Evaluating the effects of oral prednisolone on recovery after tonsillectomy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Laryngoscope2000;110:2000-4.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Rabbani MZ, Khan MNA, Qureshi R, Zubair M, Bin Pervez M. Does the added benefit of Ondansetron over Dexamethasone, to control post-operative nausea and vomiting, justify the added cost in patients undergoing tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy? J Pak Med Assoc2010;60:559-61.OpenUrlMedline?Rujirojindakul P, Atchariyasathian V, Uakrìtdathikran T, Boonyata N, Boonthida Saefung B. Effect of dexamethasone on postoperative pain after adult tonsillectomy. Thai J Anesthesiol2008;34:1-8.OpenUrl?Samarkandi AH, Shaikh MA, Ahmad RA, Alammar AY. Use of dexamethasone to reduce postoperative vomiting and pain after pediatric tonsillectomy procedures. Saudi Med J2004;25:1636-9.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Stewart R, Bill R, Ullah R, McConaghy P, Hall SJ. Dexamethasone reduces pain after tonsillectomy in adults. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci2002;27:321-6.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Tom LWC, Templeton JJ, Thompson ME, Marsh RR. Dexamethasone in adenotonsillectomy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol1996;37:115-20.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Trujillo M, Ramírez J, Fuentes S. Efecto de la administración de dexametasona intravenosa en pacientes pediátricos post operados de amigdalectomía com o sin adenoidectomía. An ORL Méx2005;50:61-4.OpenUrl?Volk MS, Martin P, Brodsky L, Stanievich JF, Ballou M. The effects of preoperative steroids on tonsillectomy patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1993;109:726-30.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?O’Leary S, Vorrath J. Postoperative bleeding after diathermy and dissection tonsillectomy. Laryngoscope2005;115:591-4.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Lee M, Montague M, Hussain S. Post-tonsillectomy hemorrhage: cold versus hot dissection. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2004;131:833-6.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?British Association of Otorhinolaryngologists—Head and Neck Surgeons Comparative Audit Group and the Clinical Effectiveness Unit of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. National prospective tonsillectomy audit. Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2005.?Raut V, Bhat N, Kinsella J, Toner J, Sinnathuray A, Stevenson M. Bipolar scissors versus cold dissection tonsillectomy: a prospective, randomized, multi-unit study. Laryngoscope2001;111:2178-82.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Windfuhr JP, Chen YS. Incidence of post-tonsillectomy hemorrhage in children and adults: a study of 4,848 patients. Ear Nose Throat J2002;81:626-8.OpenUrlMedline Free via Creative Commons: Open access PDFEasy ReadData supplementRespond to this article Tweet Services Email to friendDownload to citation managerAdd article to BMJ portfolioRequest permission Email Alerts Email me when this article is citedEmail me when responses are postedEmail me when a correction is posted Citations Find similar articles in PubMedArticles by Jennifer PlanteArticles by Alexis F TurgeonArticles by Ryan ZarychanskiArticles by François LauzierArticles by Louise VigneaultArticles by Lynne MooreArticles by Amélie BoutinArticles by Dean A FergussonCiting articles via Web of ScienceCiting articles via Scopus Social bookmarking Add to CiteULike CiteULikeAdd to Connotea ConnoteaAdd to Del.icio.us Del.icio.usAdd to Digg DiggAdd to Facebook FacebookAdd to Mendeley MendeleyAdd to Reddit RedditAdd to Del.icio.us TechnoratiAdd to Twitter TwitterAdd to StumbleUpon Stumbleupon Latest jobsUK jobsInternational jobsUK jobs UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE CLINICAL LECTURER DIABETES/ENDOCRINOLOGY OR METABOLIC MEDICINE (23 Aug 2012) Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust British Antarctic Survey Medical Unit Medical Officers (20 Aug 2012) NHS HAMPSHIRE Consultant in Public Health (31 Aug 2012) NHS AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN SPECIALTY DOCTOR SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE (31 Aug 2012) show me all jobs >> International jobs DOCTORS - ENJOY THE GREAT LIFESTYLE in Australia and New Zealand. SHO/ Registrar/ Consultant and GP openings. (6 Jul 2012) Clinical Head of Emergency Department, Hutt Hospital Lower Hutt, New Zealand Reference: 957 Hutt Valley DHB, New Zealand is recruiting for (31 Aug 2012) Trincay Medical Services requires consultants specialized in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oncology, Plastic Surgery and Rheumatology (30 Aug 2012) Deakin University Australia Chair in Medicine (30 Aug 2012) show me all jobs >>

Rapid responses Latest ResponsesMost responsesLatest Responses Re: The crisis in diabetes care in England Published 2 September 2012

Re: The QOF is bad for diabetes care. Published 2 September 2012

Re: NHS health checks and the QOF will make overtreatment even more common Published 2 September 2012

Intracutaneous injections of sterile water as treatment of renal colic Published 2 September 2012

Re: The crisis in diabetes care in England - People or cash cows Published 2 September 2012

more Most responses Bad medicine: private practice (14 responses)

Published 15 August 2012

Diagnosis and management of cellulitis (11 responses)

Published 7 August 2012

Unhappy pills (11 responses)

Published 10 August 2012

We should not let families stop organ donation from their dead relatives (8 responses)

Published 7 August 2012

A national early warning score for acutely ill patients (7 responses)

Published 8 August 2012

more THIS WEEK'S POLL

Read related article

See previous polls

Recent blogs and podcastsBlogsPodcastsBlogs Tiago Villaneuva: The health benefits of dancing (31 Aug 2012) Toby Pitts-Tucker: The Paralympic legacy and disability hate crime (31 Aug 2012) Vasiliy Vlassov: Psychiatry and political dissent in Russia (31 Aug 2012) Pritpal S Tamber: The Red Hand Gang of healthcare? (30 Aug 2012) John Pring: On the Paralympics, DLAs, and PIPs (30 Aug 2012) more >> Podcasts Bad for wealth, bad for health? (31 Aug 2012) Ecological public health (24 Aug 2012) Fighting the food giants (17 Aug 2012) Is the drug pipeline really drying up? (10 Aug 2012) Renal patient records (3 Aug 2012) more >> BMJ most popular Most sharedMost searchedMost shared Sample size calculations: should the emperor’s clothes be off the peg or made to measure? (334 views) Good reason to test for vitamin D deficiency (226 views) Big tits (221 views) The health and development of children born to older mothers in the United Kingdom: observational study using longitudinal cohort data (205 views) Big tits (196 views) Most searched Kathleen Hilditch guyatt France how to read a paper chronic liver disease Follow BMJ On twitter.com/bmj_latestfacebook.com/bmjdotcomyoutube.com/user/BMJmedia Content Links Last 7 daysResearchEducationNewsCommentArchiveBlogsVideoPrint Issue My Account Email alertsActivate subscription Resources AuthorsReviewersBMA membersReadersSubscribersAdvertisers and sponsorsMedia Information Contact usFeedback BMJ About usEditorial staffAdvisersPoliciesComplaintsPartnershipsSubmit your paper Explore BMJ About BMJ GroupJunior Doctors: Agents for ChangeOlympics portalStudent BMJdoc2docJunior Doctor PortalPandemic FluBMJ Group BMJ Group Privacy and Cookie Policy Website T & Cs Revenue Sources HighWire Press Feedback Help © 2012 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd window.fbAsyncInit = function() {FB.init({appId: '154318714596620', status: true, cookie: true,xfbml: true});};(function() {var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true;e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js';document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e);}());

View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

الجمعة، 10 أغسطس 2012

Assessing the risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraception: a meta-analysis

Assessing the risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraception: a meta-analysis | BMJ

Menu

Search BMJ Group Search BMJ Group   Journals Jobs Education Decision support Quality improvement Community

BMJ Group

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients

About BMJ Group Customer Service Subscriptions & Sales Working for BMJ Group BMJ Media Centre BMJ Group Awards Advertising & Sponsorship Rights & Licensing Affinity & Society Publishing Online learning BMJ Learning High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications BMJ Masterclasses BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

BMJ Learning BMJ Portfolio BMJ Masterclasses Clinical Leadership Programme Diabetes Qualifications and Courses onExamination Decision support and clinical reference BMJ Evidence Centre

The BMJ Evidence Centre builds evidence into practice, to support improvements in the consistency and quality of health care.

Best Practice Clinical Evidence Evidence Updates Best Health Action Sets Informatica Systems Informatica Systems delivers performance management systems and innovative software solutions to primary care. Learn more

Audit + Contract + Health Checks FrontDesk BMJ Quality

The latest news, research, events, opinion and guidance related to quality and safety in health care.

The 2013 event will take place in London from 16th- 19th April 2013. Find out more

BMJ Quality BMJ Quality and Safety International Forum on Quality and Safety in Healthcare BMJ

The flagship general medical journal, published since 1840, updated daily online, weekly in print and on the iPad.

BMJ BMJ Journals

BMJ Journals division publishes over 40 journals across a broad range of specialties.

BMJ Journals studentBMJ

An international medical journal written for students by students.

Student BMJ Jobs BMJ Careers

BMJ Careers makes it easy for you to find the right job with the latest healthcare vacancies, upcoming careers fairs, advice on choosing the right specialty, pay and working conditions.

19-20 October 2012 at the Business Design Centre in Islington, London. Register here

BMJ Careers Jobs and vacancies at BMJ Group BMJ Careers Fair Community

Join the discussions on our community site doc2doc or our social pages

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

doc2doc Follow BMJ Group on Twitter BMJ Group on Facebook BMJ Group Awards Subscribe My account

Update my details

Manage my emails

BMA Members Sign in Username: * Password: * Forgot your sign in details?BMA membersAthens or your organisation BMJ Helping doctors make better decisions Search bmj.com:   Advanced search Home Research Education News Comment Multimedia Specialties Archive Search all BMJ research articles:   From18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec To18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Limit by AllResearchMethods and reporting Our online table of contents is updated at least twice each day. Read all articles published in the last 7 days. You can use bmj.com to help you with your continuing medical education. Find out about CME/CPD credits for BMJ articles Keep up to date with cardiology: Access the latest cardiovascular medicine resources from across BMJ Group. OPEN ACCESS: All research articles are freely available online, with no word limit. Find out more about the BMJ's open access policy. Submit your paper. Find out how study types differ in our How to read a paper section. Countdown to London 2012: BMJ Group's Olympics portal highlights latest Olympics and sports medicine-themed research, comment and learning

Research Assessing the risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraception: a meta-analysis BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4944 (Published 7 August 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e4944 Reproductive medicine Contraception Drugs: obstetrics and gynaecology Sexual health More topics

Clinical trials (epidemiology) Internet Fewer topics

Article Related content Article metrics S Mantha, senior staff haematologist1, R Karp, clinical fellow in medicine2, V Raghavan, clinical fellow in medicine3, N Terrin, associate professor of medicine4, K A Bauer, professor of medicine25, J I Zwicker, assistant professor of medicine2
1Division of Hematology-Oncology, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA, USA
2Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Divisions of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and Hematology-Oncology, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215, USA
3Harvard Medical School, Mt Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, MA
4Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA
5Harvard Medical School, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MACorrespondence to: J I Zwicker jzwicker{at}bidmc.harvard.eduAccepted 28 June 2012AbstractObjectives To evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with the use of progestin-only contraception and whether that risk differs with the mode of drug delivery (oral, intrauterine, or depot injection).

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

Data sources Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant reviews.

Study selection Randomised controlled trials and case-control, cohort, and cross sectional studies with venous thromboembolic outcome for progestin-only contraception reported relative to a non-hormone comparator group.

Data extraction Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and consensus for inclusion was reached after assessment by additional investigators.

Results Among the 2022 unique references identified by all searches, eight observational studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. A total of 147 women across all studies were diagnosed with a venous thromboembolic event while taking progestin-only contraception, and the summary measure for the adjusted relative risk of a venous thromboembolic episode for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive was, based on the random effects model, 1.03 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.39). Subgroup analysis confirmed there was no association between venous thromboembolic risk and progestin-only pills (relative risk 0.90 (0.57 to 1.45)) or a progestin intrauterine device (0.61 (0.24 to 1.53)). The relative risk of a venous thromboembolic event for users of an injectable progestin versus non-users was 2.67 (1.29 to 5.53).

Conclusions Published data assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women prescribed progestin-only contraception are limited. In this meta-analysis of eight observational studies, the use of progestin-only contraception was not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism compared with non-users of hormonal contraception. The potential association between injectable progestins and thrombosis requires further study.

IntroductionSince their introduction in the 1960s, combined oestrogen-progestin oral contraceptives have been associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events. This thrombotic risk was attributed to the oestrogen content, which prompted the development of oral contraceptives containing less oestrogen. Use of formulations containing lower dose oestrogen still confer about twofold to fourfold increased risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with non-use.1 2 3 4 5 Epidemiological data suggest that subsequent changes in the composition of combined oral contraceptives by altering the progestin content can exacerbate thrombotic risk. Accordingly, newer progestins such as desogestrel, gestodene, and norgestimate have been associated with a greater venous thromboembolic risk than the older progestins such as levonorgestrel, lynestrenol, and norethisterone.4 5 6 7 8 When combined with an oestrogen, the newer progestins increase activated protein C resistance more than older progestins, which may account for the observed increased incidence of venous thromboembolism.9 10 11 12 Despite evidence that progestins may influence the risk of venous thromboembolism, there are only limited data evaluating the association between progestin-only contraception and thrombosis. Progestin-only contraception is generally thought to pose little risk of thrombosis and is recommended for women at high risk—such as post partum or with hereditary thrombophilia or a history of venous thromboembolism.13 14 We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolism associated with progestin-only contraception.

MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the hypothesis that progestin-only contraceptives do not increase the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We conducted a literature search of journal articles published on or before 31 December 2011 using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The index (MeSH or Emtree) fields were queried for the key words “progestin,” “progesterone,” “progestogen,” “progestagen,” “gestagen,” “contraceptive,” “thrombosis,” “thromboembolism,” and “thrombotic” (see appendix on bmj.com). Because of available resources, we considered only English language publications. We also performed a hand search of all the references included in a previous meta-analysis that analysed progesterone-only contraception and the risk of venous thromboembolic events15 and a review of contraception in thrombophilic adolescents.16

Inclusion criteriaStudies were included if they met all of the following conditions: a randomised trial or case-control, cohort, or cross sectional study (prospective or retrospective); presence of a treatment arm featuring use of progestin-only contraceptives and a control arm with no hormone use; use of progestin for the purpose of contraception only (excluding postcoital contraception); independent analysis of premenopausal women; incidence of venous thromboembolic events (defined as deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) reported; study featured human data only; one or more of three possible administration routes (oral, injectable, or intrauterine) were considered.

Data extractionThe initial search of the three databases was performed by SM; the references obtained were screened independently by two reviewers (RK and VR). Abstracts were assessed for relevance, and the full text of potentially suitable articles were retrieved. Each of those papers was assessed independently by the two reviewers (RK and VR) for inclusion in the meta-analysis; the reason for exclusion was noted for rejected articles. Two other reviewers (SM and JIZ) read the final subset of papers retained; mutual consensus was required for a study to be included in the analysis.

Validity assessmentTwo reviewers (SM and JIZ) independently qualitatively evaluated the risk of confounding and the design quality of selected studies. Observational studies were assessed as suggested by the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group.17 The characteristics of individuals in the case and control groups or exposed and unexposed patients were compared; the use of matching or stratification was noted, and covariates used for adjustment in multivariate analysis were recorded. For randomised trials, the plan was to use the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias.18

Statistical analysisWe estimated the risk ratio of venous thromboembolism for users of progestin-only oral contraceptives versus non-users. Venous thromboembolism was defined as including both deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. We assumed that venous thromboembolic events had a low incidence (<10% a year) in women aged <50 years taking oral contraceptives; this was based on previous reports estimating the yearly incidence of those events to about 0.06% per year.4 For infrequent events, the risk ratio, odds ratio, and rate ratio are considered equivalent measures of relative risk.19 With this in mind, we used the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 2.2 software platform, entering each measure of relative risk in the same data table as if it were a risk ratio. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used with the study as the unit of analysis. The primary analysis was performed with the adjusted measures of effect.

As a secondary analysis, we estimated the adjusted risk ratio of venous thromboembolism for users versus non-users of a hormone in each subgroup according to route of administration (oral, injectable and intrauterine). Additionally, an unadjusted odds ratio of venous thromboembolic event for users versus non-users of progestin was calculated using the raw event data. Heterogeneity across studies was estimated by means of the I2 statistic, itself calculated from the Q statistic. Sensitivity analysis was performed by repeating the primary analysis while excluding selected subgroups in order to determine if they had an inordinate effect on the estimated measure of effect.

ResultsA total of 2045 references were identified: 1827 from PubMed, 215 from Embase, and none from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (fig 1?). Two journal articles were identified from reading reviews of the subject matter,15 16 20 21 and one from personal knowledge of an author.22 After removal of duplicates, 2022 records remained and were screened for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 1922 were excluded after review of the abstract for lack of pertinence, leaving 100 articles to be retrieved. The full text of these papers were evaluated: 92 were excluded, with eight remaining for analysis.20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The reasons for exclusion were not being a case-control or cohort study or randomised trial (n=41), results not reported separately for a progestin-only arm (n=39), absence of a no hormone arm (n=4), progestin not administered for contraception only (n=4), results for venous thromboembolism not reported (n=3), and old version of a study with a recent update (n=1).

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 1 Flow diagram of studies included in meta-analysis

Characteristics of included studiesThe methods used by the authors of the eight selected studies are summarised in table 1?. Our search found no randomised trial including a group of women taking a progestin-only contraceptive versus a group taking no hormone; three studies were retrospective cohort analyses, and five were case-control studies. All the case-control studies matched participants by age, and all but one study evaluated patients taking a progesterone-only pill with some also including individuals with a depot or intrauterine progestin-only contraceptive. Only two studies made use of stratification, but all of them performed multivariate analysis. The regression techniques varied widely: logistic regression was the most common approach,20 26 27 28 followed by Poisson regression23 24 and Cox modelling.22 23 Body mass index was the variable most commonly adjusted for, with five sets of authors using it in their model. Two of the three retrospective cohort studies adjusted results for age in multivariate analysis. After considering these details, our reviewers determined that all of the eight papers retrieved in the search were of sufficient quality to be included in the meta-analysis.

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 1 Characteristics of studies included in review of risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraceptives

A total of 147 women sustained a venous thromboembolic event, and table 2? shows the results of the articles retained for final analysis. The largest study was that of Lidegaard et al,24 with 1882 episodes of venous thromboembolism recorded in the combined group of individuals exposed to a progestin or to no hormone, followed by the WHO study,27 which featured 667 cases of venous thromboembolism for progestin-only users and non-users. The remaining six papers included a total of 777 events. The mean ages of case and control groups or exposed and unexposed groups were similar in the articles where the data were available. Since logistic regression was used in most papers, the odds ratio was the most common measure of effect.

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 2 Progestin exposure characteristics in studies of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraceptives

Risk of venous thromboembolismThe adjusted relative risk of a venous thromboembolic event for users of progestin-only contraception versus non-users varied from 0.68 to 1.93, as shown in table 3?. None of the studies reported a statistically significant difference in the risk of venous thromboembolic event for users versus non-users of progestin-only contraceptive, whether for subgroups of users or all users versus non-users. However, Lidegaard et al reported the results for three different progestin-only formulations separately.24 We combined these three risk ratio estimates, corresponding to the three progestins, using the random effect models and setting the study as the unit of analysis. We assumed the three estimates were independent because there was insufficient information to account for their dependence. Hence the confidence interval of the estimate (0.61 to 0.98) may be too narrow (table 2?).

View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 3 Total number of venous thromboembolic events and adjusted relative risk in women taking progestin-only contraceptives or no hormone among included studies

The summary measure for the adjusted relative risk of a venous thromboembolic event for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive was 1.03 (95% CI 0.76 to1.39) with the random effects model (fig 2?). This value was similar to the one obtained by combining the crude results (relative risk 1.21 (0.92 to 1.59)). However, the largest study (by Lidegaard et al24) could not be included in this latter estimate because the numbers of exposed and unexposed individuals were not provided (fig 3?).

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 2 Adjusted relative risk of venous thromboembolism for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive, all subgroups combined

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 3 Unadjusted relative risk of venous thromboembolism for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive, all subgroups combined

Subset analysis was performed on the adjusted results with the random effects model. A total of 54 women developed a venous thromboembolic event while taking a progestin-only pill (excluding the study by Vasilakis et al,25 which did not specify the route of administration), and they showed no significant increase in risk of venous thromboembolism compared with non-users (relative risk 0.90 (0.57 to 1.45)). On the other hand, the relative risk of an event for users of an injectable progestin formulation versus non-users was 2.67((1.29 to 5.53) (fig 4?). Only two studies could be used to compute this value because no other article reported the results separately for that subgroup. Those two papers featured a total of 31 venous thromboembolic events in users of injectable progestins, which represents 21% of all cases in progestin-only users among all of the eight studies. Similarly, only two papers reported the results for the risk of venous thromboembolism in users of a progestin-only intrauterine device, and the combined measure of effect was 0.61 (0.24 to 1.53). These two studies reported 58 thromboembolic events in users of a progestin-only intrauterine device, which corresponds to 39% of all such episodes in progestin-only users among all of the eight studies. Notably, most of the information on these thromboembolic events comes from Lidegaard et al,24 with 55 venous thromboembolic event episodes in comparison with only three episodes in the paper from van Hylckama Vlieg et al.26

View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 4 Adjusted relative risk of venous thromboembolism for users versus non-users of a progestin-only contraceptive, injectable formulation only

Heterogeneity was low, with an I2 of 24% and P=0.24 for the adjusted results (fig 2?). Sensitivity analysis was done by repeating the meta-analysis with one of the studies removed on an iterative basis: for all iterations, the 95% confidence intervals overlapped largely with those of the main analysis (data not shown).

DiscussionThe primary objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the risk of venous thromboembolic events in women taking progestin-only contraception compared with non-users. A total of eight studies were included in this analysis, and the summary statistic did not identify a significant risk of venous thromboembolism associated with use of progestin-only contraception. There was a low degree of heterogeneity between studies, and we performed subgroup analysis to determine whether the apparent lack of association with venous thromboembolism was independent of route of administration of progestin (oral, depot injection, or intrauterine device).

All studies except that of van Hylckama Vlieg et al26 included patients taking an oral progestin; pooling of the results for the five papers reporting results separately for that subgroup indicated no increase in risk of venous thromboembolism for users versus non-users. The oral formulations included in this meta-analysis consisted of numerous different compounds, so it is not possible to evaluate a relation between risk of venous thromboembolism and individual types of progestin. In the studies that included women using a progestin-only intrauterine device, no excess risk of venous thromboembolism was detected. However, our analysis suggests that depot administration more than doubles the risk of venous thromboembolism. Only two studies reported results separately for this subgroup, representing about a fifth of the total number of venous thromboembolic episodes in the progestin-only users for the eight studies.

The relative safety of progestin-only contraception by oral and intrauterine delivery may in part be explained by dose, absorption, or metabolism. The amount of progestin included in a progestin-only “mini-pill” is considerably less than that commonly supplied in a combined oestrogen-progestin oral contraceptive. For instance, norethindrone is the only marketed progestin-only pill marketed in the United States, and when used alone the dose is 0.35 mg daily or about a third of the dose commonly found in combined oestrogen-progestin formulations.29 Similarly, the levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine device releases about 20 µg of levonorgestrel daily, most of which is concentrated in the endometrium with plasma concentrations ranging between 74 and 166 pg/mL.30 By comparison, after intramuscular injection of medroxyprogesterone 150 mg, the peak plasma concentration is 2500–7000 pg/mL and remains greater than 430 pg/mL at three months.31 32

Different progestins are also known to influence the risk of thrombosis differently. Evidence suggests that third generation progestins such as desogestrel in combination with oestrogen are more prothrombotic than earlier formulations such as levonorgestrel or norethisterone.4 5 6 7 8 24 Progestins can modulate oestrogen induced activated protein C resistance12 and have been shown to influence the cellular expression of tissue factor33 34 as well as circulating tissue factor pathway inhibitor.10 35 In a mouse model of vascular injury administration of medroxyprogesterone significantly shortened the time to development of an occlusive thrombus.36 In the studies included in this meta-analysis, the vast majority of women used older progestins, potentially masking an association with venous thromboembolism. However, the study by Lidegaard et al analysed more than 29?000 women years for a third generation progestin-only pill and failed to show any increased risk associated with its use (adjusted venous thromboembolic event rate 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.42)).24

Strengths and limitations of the meta-analysisA potential limitation of this study remains the paucity of published literature on the topic, with a total of only eight studies available for analysis and no randomised trials. The inclusion of several recently published large epidemiological studies permits a more robust summary analysis with tighter confidence intervals than a previously published meta-analysis, which evaluated only four studies (without an analysis according to method of delivery).15 The consistency of the results for different oral formulations reassures the validity of the measure of effect for this group. The subgroup analysis for intrauterine devices and depot injections should be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of studies available for analysis.

Control for confounding in the individual studies was usually limited. Also, selection bias cannot be excluded as the basis of the significant association between depot administration and venous thromboembolism. However, this is unlikely as the study that contributed most to the summary statistic for depot injection specifically excluded highest risk women (that is, those with a personal history of venous thromboembolism).26 We did not observe evidence of publication or reporting bias. However, the small number of studies limits our ability to formally assess these potential biases.37 Bias and lack of adjustment for confounders at the level of the individual studies cannot be corrected in the meta-analysis, so the validity of these results is dependent on quality of the primary observational data.

Implications for patient careDeciding on the optimal contraceptive method is often difficult for women considered at increased risk of venous thromboembolism, such as those with a history of thrombophilia. The World Health Organization and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publish similarly titled guidelines on the topic, “Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use.” All modes of progestin-only contraception are advocated, even for higher risk women such as those with hereditary thrombophilia, history of oestrogen induced venous thromboembolism, or history of recurrent venous thromboembolism.13 14 This meta-analysis offers further reassurance that such guidance is appropriate. However, only two of the studies were specifically conducted in high risk populations, with a total of 360 women.22 23 Our analysis also suggests that the relative safety of progestin-only agents may be limited to oral and intrauterine formulations, whereas the thrombotic risk associated with injectable progestin seems to be of similar magnitude to oral contraceptives containing oestrogen.

ConclusionCollectively, progestin-only contraceptives were not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism compared with non-users in a limited number of observational studies. In the subset of women in this analysis prescribed injectable progestins, there was an approximate twofold increase in thrombotic risk. These results require confirmation as selection bias cannot be excluded. In the interim, we suggest consideration of non-injectable forms of progestin-only contraception for highest risk women.

What is already known on this topicThe risk of venous thromboembolic events associated with use of hormone contraceptives is influenced by the dose of oestrogen and formulation of progestin

Progestin-only contraception is the preferred hormone contraceptive in women considered higher risk for development of venous thromboembolism

What this study addsThis meta-analysis of eight observational studies did not identify an association between oral progestin-only contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism

Subgroup analysis suggests that injectable progestin contraception is associated with an approximate twofold increased risk of risk of venous thromboembolism relative to women not taking hormonal contraception

NotesCite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e4944

FootnotesContributors: RK and VR performed initial literature searches and data extraction. JIZ and SM performed data extraction, statistical analysis, and coauthored the manuscript. NT provided statistical analysis and editing. KAB performed manuscript review and editing.

Funding: This study was funded by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health (grant No UL1 RR025752). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: support from US National Institute of Health for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Data sharing: No additional data available.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

References?Helmerhorst FM, Bloemenkamp KW, Rosendaal FR, Vandenbroucke JP. Oral contraceptives and thrombotic disease: risk of venous thromboembolism. Thromb Haemost1997;78:327-33.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Vessey M, Mant D, Smith A, Yeates D. Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism: findings in a large prospective study. BMJ1986;292:526.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Gerstman BB, Piper JM, Tomita DK, Ferguson WJ, Stadel BV, Lundin FE. Oral contraceptive estrogen dose and the risk of deep venous thromboembolic disease. Am J Epidemiol1991;133:32-7.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Lidegaard O, Lokkegaard E, Svendsen AL, Agger C. Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study. BMJ2009;339:1-8.OpenUrl?Van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJ, Rosendaal FR. The venous thrombotic risk of oral contraceptives, effects of oestrogen dose and progestogen type: results of the MEGA case-control study. BMJ2009;339:b2921.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Jick H, Jick SS, Gurewich V, Myers MW, Vasilakis C. Risk of idiopathic cardiovascular death and nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components. Lancet1995;346:1589-93.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: results of international multicentre case-control study. Lancet1995;346:1575-82.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Kemmeren JM, Algra A, Grobbee DE. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis. BMJ2001;323:131-4.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Rosing J, Middeldorp S, Curvers J, Christella M, Thomassen LG, Nicolaes GA, et al. Low-dose oral contraceptives and acquired resistance to activated protein C: a randomised cross-over study. Lancet1999;354:2036-40.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Van Vliet HA, Bertina RM, Dahm AE, Rosendaal FR, Rosing J, Sandset PM, et al. Different effects of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens on protein S and tissue factor pathway inhibitor. J Thromb Haemost 2008;6:346-51.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Tchaikovski SN, van Vliet HA, Thomassen MC, Bertina RM, Rosendaal FR, Sandset PM, et al. Effect of oral contraceptives on thrombin generation measured via calibrated automated thrombography. J Thromb Haemost2007;98:1350-6.OpenUrl?Kemmeren JM, Algra A, Meijers JC, Tans G, Bouma BN, Curvers J, et al. Effect of second- and third-generation oral contraceptives on the protein C system in the absence or presence of the factor VLeiden mutation: a randomized trial. Blood2004;103:927-33.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. MMWR Early Release2010;59:1-86.OpenUrl?Department of Reproductive Health WHO. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 4th ed. WHO Press, 2009.?Bergendal A, Odlind V, Persson I, Kieler H. Limited knowledge on progestogen-only contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand2009;88:261-6.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Rott H. Hormonal contraception in thrombophilic adolescents. Risk of thrombosis and recommendations. Hamostaseologie2012;32:15-21.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al for the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA2000;283:2008-12.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.?Pagano M, Gauvreau K. Principles of biostatistics. 2nd ed. Duxbury, 2000.?Heinemann LA, Assmann A, DoMinh T, Garbe E. Oral progestogen-only contraceptives and cardiovascular risk: results from the Transnational Study on Oral Contraceptives and the Health of Young Women. Eur J Contraception Reprod Health 1999;4:67-73.OpenUrlCrossRef?Meirik O, Farley TM, Sivin I. Safety and efficacy of levonorgestrel implant, intrauterine device, and sterilization. Obstet Gynecol2001;97:539-47.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Vaillant-Roussel H, Ouchchane L, Dauphin C, Philippe P, Ruivard M. Risk factors for recurrence of venous thromboembolism associated with the use of oral contraceptives. Contraception2011;84:e23-30.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Conard J, Plu-Bureau G, Bahi N, Horellou MH, Pelissier C, Thalabard JC. Progestogen-only contraception in women at high risk of venous thromboembolism. Contraception2004;70:437-41.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Lidegaard O, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW, Skjeldestad FE, Lokkegaard E. Risk of venous thromboembolism from use of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens and oestrogen doses: Danish cohort study, 2001-9. BMJ2011;343:d6423.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Vasilakis C, Jick H, del Mar Melero-Montes M. Risk of idiopathic venous thromboembolism in users of progestagens alone. Lancet1999;354:1610-1.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Rosendaal FR. The risk of deep venous thrombosis associated with injectable depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate contraceptives or a levonorgestrel intrauterine device. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol2010;30:2297-300.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Cardiovascular disease and use of oral and injectable progestogen-only contraceptives and combined injectable contraceptives. Results of an international, multicenter, case-control study. Contraception1998;57:315-24.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Barsoum MK, Heit JA, Ashrani AA, Leibson CL, Petterson TM, Bailey KR. Is progestin an independent risk factor for incident venous thromboembolism? A population-based case-control study. Thromb Res2010;126:373-8.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Stanczyk FZ, Mroszczak EJ, Ling T, Runkel R, Henzl M, Miyakawa I, et al. Plasma levels and pharmacokinetics of norethindrone and ethinylestradiol administered in solution and as tablets to women. Contraception1983;28:241-51.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Nilsson CG, Lahteenmaki PL, Luukkainen T, Robertson DN. Sustained intrauterine release of levonorgestrel over five years. Fertil Steril1986;45:805-7.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Nanda K, Amaral E, Hays M, Viscola MA, Mehta N, Bahamondes L. Pharmacokinetic interactions between depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and combination antiretroviral therapy. Fertil Steril2008;90:965-71.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Bogdanov VY, Balasubramanian V, Hathcock J, Vele O, Lieb M, Nemerson Y. Alternatively spliced human tissue factor: a circulating, soluble, thrombogenic protein. Nat Med2003;9:458-62.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Lockwood CJ, Murk W, Kayisli UA, Buchwalder LF, Huang ST, Funai EF, et al. Progestin and thrombin regulate tissue factor expression in human term decidual cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab2009;94:2164-70.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Kato S, Pinto M, Carvajal A, Espinoza N, Monso C, Sadarangani A, et al. Progesterone increases tissue factor gene expression, procoagulant activity, and invasion in the breast cancer cell line ZR-75-1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab2005;90:1181-8.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Shirk RA, Zhang Z, Winneker RC. Differential effects of estrogens and progestins on the anticoagulant tissue factor pathway inhibitor in the rat. J Steroid Biochem Molecular Biol2005;94:361-8.OpenUrlCrossRef?Freudenberger T, Oppermann M, Marzoll A, Heim HK, Mayer P, Kojda G, et al. Differential effects of medroxyprogesterone acetate on thrombosis and atherosclerosis in mice. Br J Pharmacol2009;158:1951-60.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ2011;343:d4002.OpenUrlFREE Full Text Free via Creative Commons: Open access PDFEasy ReadData supplementRespond to this article Tweet Services Email to friendDownload to citation managerAdd article to BMJ portfolioRequest permission Citations Find similar articles in PubMedArticles by S ManthaArticles by R KarpArticles by V RaghavanArticles by N TerrinArticles by K A BauerArticles by J I ZwickerCiting articles via Web of ScienceCiting articles via Scopus Social bookmarking Add to CiteULike CiteULikeAdd to Connotea ConnoteaAdd to Del.icio.us Del.icio.usAdd to Digg DiggAdd to Facebook FacebookAdd to Mendeley MendeleyAdd to Reddit RedditAdd to Del.icio.us TechnoratiAdd to Twitter TwitterAdd to StumbleUpon Stumbleupon Latest jobsUK jobsInternational jobsUK jobs Eames Jones Judge Hawkings European Medical Affairs Director (30 Jul 2012)UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LECTURER/HONORARY CONSULTANT IN PSYCHIATRY (19 Jul 2012)University of Cambridge The Professorship of Stroke Medicine (19 Jul 2012)University of Cambridge Clinical Lecturer in Anaesthesia (19 Jul 2012) show me all jobs >> International jobs DOCTORS - ENJOY THE GREAT LIFESTYLE in Australia and New Zealand. SHO/ Registrar/ Consultant and GP openings. (6 Jul 2012)LONDON INTERVIEWS Saudi Arabian Hospital Group September 2012 Consultant (7 Aug 2012)Two rare GP opportunities in Melbourne, VIC, Australia (6 Aug 2012)New Zealand - Emergency Specialists, Urgent care and GPs please. (6 Aug 2012) show me all jobs >> Rapid responses Latest ResponsesMost responsesLatest Responses Re: How a charity oversells mammography Published 8 August 2012

Re: Association between psychological distress and mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohort studies (Authors' reply) Published 8 August 2012

Re: Management of osteoarthritis of the knee Published 8 August 2012

Need to redefine the term and post term pregnancies Published 8 August 2012

The Marconi Sign: The Value of Clinical Examination Published 8 August 2012

more Most responses The truth about sports drinks (12 responses)

Published 19 July 2012

In praise of young doctors (11 responses)

Published 11 July 2012

Sanctity of life law has gone too far (6 responses)

Published 12 July 2012

Vitamin D: some perspective please (5 responses)

Published 19 July 2012

Association between psychological distress and mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohort studies (5 responses)

Published 31 July 2012

more THIS WEEK'S POLL

Read related article

See previous polls

Recent blogs and podcastsBlogsPodcastsBlogs Richard Lehman’s journal review – 6 August 2012 (6 Aug 2012)K M Venkat Narayan: Ten barriers to trans-disciplinary science (6 Aug 2012)John Davies: An Olympics day off with Leonardo da Vinci (6 Aug 2012)Richard Smith: An open blog to Prime Minister David Cameron (3 Aug 2012)Olympic volunteer John Davies: Working with athletes (3 Aug 2012) more >> Podcasts Renal patient records (3 Aug 2012)Shift workers' health and assessing risk of violence (27 Jul 2012)Insanity in the dock (20 Jul 2012)Telehealth: Running before walking? (13 Jul 2012)Obama's healthcare reforms on trial (6 Jul 2012) more >> BMJ most popular Most sharedMost searchedMost shared The truth about sports drinks (877 views)Management of osteoarthritis of the knee (807 views)Treating prostate cancer (651 views)Association between psychological distress and mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohort studies (571 views)How a charity oversells mammography (532 views) Most searched Kathleen Hilditchguyattirritable bowel syndromeclinical governance and the drivediabetes cardiovascular disease biomarker Follow BMJ On twitter.com/bmj_latestfacebook.com/bmjdotcomyoutube.com/user/BMJmedia Content Links Last 7 daysResearchEducationNewsCommentArchiveBlogsVideoPrint Issue My Account Email alertsActivate subscription Resources AuthorsReviewersBMA membersReadersSubscribersAdvertisers and sponsorsMedia Information Contact usFeedback BMJ About usEditorial staffAdvisersPoliciesComplaintsPartnershipsSubmit your paper Explore BMJ About BMJ GroupJunior Doctors: Agents for ChangeOlympics portalStudent BMJdoc2docPandemic FluBMJ Group BMJ Group Privacy and Cookie Policy Website T & Cs Revenue Sources HighWire Press Feedback Help © 2012 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd window.fbAsyncInit = function() {FB.init({appId: '154318714596620', status: true, cookie: true,xfbml: true});};(function() {var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true;e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js';document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e);}());

View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.