SynthesisNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
Protamine sulphate for heparin reversal in percutaneous cardiac interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Renal Protection at a Metabolic Cost: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Heparin Anticoagulant Therapy and Its Monitoring.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Transradial vs transfemoral secondary access outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vascular complications after percutaneous cardiac interventions are a significant cause of morbidity that affects post-procedural prognosis. Data about the efficacy and safety of routine protamine sulphate to prevent these complications remain scarce. Hence, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of routine protamine sulphate use for heparin reversal in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiac interventions. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until September 2024. The RCTs' quality was assessed using the Cochrane tool (RoB 2). Using R, we pooled dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MD), both along the corresponding 95% Confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: (CRD42024593002). Six RCTs with 1,076 patients were eligible. Hemostasis success was significantly higher in the protamine group (RR, 1.06; 95% CI [1.01-1.10]; P = 0.01), and the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD, -0.46; 95% CI [-0.65, -0.26]; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between both groups in stroke (RR, 0.60; 95% CI [0.18-2.03]; P = 0.41), major bleeding (P = 0.25), minor bleeding (P = 0.11), life-threatening bleeding (P = 0.65), time to ambulation (P = 0.13), all-cause mortality (P = 0.92), hematoma/pseudoaneurysm (P = 0.92), and major vascular complications (P = 0.70). While protamine improved hemostasis success, its effect on reducing bleeding events and time to ambulation was insignificant. Also, reducing the length of hospital stay in the protamine group highlights its potential clinical benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.