Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2021 May 7;100(18):e25639. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025639

The safety and effectiveness of salvianolate in preventing perioperative venous thromboembolism in China

A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis based on RCTs

Yu-na Chai a, Mi Luo b, Wei-jie Liang c, Jian-li Qiu d, Dangchi Li e, Li-chong Wang f, Xing Tu g, Cheng-ye Liu h, Chong-Zhen Qin a,∗, Duo-lu Li a
Editor: Robert Chen
PMCID: PMC8104266  PMID: 33950941

Abstract

Background:

Salvianolate, a common drug for stabilizing heart disease and Angina Pectoris, is considered to be off-label for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) or anticoagulation at present. However, many clinical studies have showed that salvianolate can effectively inhibit the deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) incidence, and prevent VTE of perioperative patients in the real world in China.

Objective:

This analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of salvianolate in preventing VTE in perioperative patients.

Methods:

Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP were searched until July 2019. Literature retrieval, data extraction and quality assessment were independently completed by two researchers and checked with each other. Review Manager 5.2 software was applied for meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 429 studies were retrieved, including 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1149 subjects. Compared with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) group alone, salvianolate combined LMWH group had lower DVT incidence in preventing perioperative thrombosis (2.75% and 14.23%, OR: 0.21, 95% CI:[0.08,0.53]; P = .0009). The incidence of adverse reactions of experimental group was similar to that of control group (1.79% and 2.31%, OR: 0.65, 95% CI:[0.18,2.35]. P = .51). Compared with the control group, D-dimer level (D-D), platelet count (PLT), fibrinogen (FIB), whole blood high shear viscosity (WBHSV), and whole blood low shear viscosity (WBLSV) were all significantly decreased (P < .01), and prothrombin time (PT) was significantly increased (P < .05).

Conclusion:

Salvianolate combined LMWH has better effectiveness and the same safety in preventing venous thromboembolism in perioperative patients. However, due to the small number of included literatures, large sample studies are still needed to further verify this conclusion.

Keywords: meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, salvianolate, Venous thromboembolism

1. Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is well known as a common complication after surgery.[1,2] VTE could potentially lead to distal venous hypertension, limb swelling, pain and other symptoms. Moreover, the detached thrombus may flow into the pulmonary artery with the blood, causing dyspnea, suffocation, and even life threat.[3] It is very important to prevent thrombosis and reduce the risk of bleeding after surgery.[4] Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the main drug used for thromboprophylaxis currently.[5] However, the incidence of VTE is still high in some patients using this drug alone.[6,7]

Salvianolate is prepared from water-soluble bioactive compounds of Salvia miltiorrhiza bunge, composing of magnesium lithospermate B (≥85%), rosmarinic acid and lithospermic acid.[8–10] Salvianolate can promote blood circulation and coronary circulation, as well as remove blood stasis.[11,12] It has been listed and clinically used to treat coronary heart disease in China. There were preclinical pharmacology studies and multicenter clinical trials to show that salvianolate was stable, safe and effective.[13,14]

Clinical studies have shown that salvianolate alone or combined with LMWH can effectively prevent the formation of DVT after surgery in orthopedics and gynecology.[7,15] This study conducted a meta-analysis of RCT studies of salvianolate to prevent perioperative thrombus formation. The study aimed to provide certain evidence for the development of new drugs for thrombus prevention.

2. Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) was applied to the literature retrieval strategy, evaluation method, data extraction, result evaluation and statistical analysis.[16]

2.1. Literature search strategy

Literature retrieval, including journals, proceedings, conference abstracts and dissertations, was performed independently by two researchers and cross-checked from China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang data, VIP database, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases. The retrieval time is from establishment of the database until July 2019. The search strategy was (((salvianolate[Title/Abstract]) OR salvianolic acid[Title/Abstract])) AND ((((cruor[Title/Abstract]) OR anticoagula∗[Title/Abstract]) OR thrombus[Title/Abstract]) OR venous thromboembolism [Title/Abstract]).

2.2. Eligibility criteria

Studies were selected based on the following inclusion criteria:

  • 1.

    RCT studies;

  • 2.

    Subjects: postoperative patients;

  • 3.

    Intervention measures: salvianolate or combined LMWH;

  • 4.

    Outcome indicators including at least one of the followings: DVT incidence, incidence of adverse reactions, D-dimer level (D-D), platelet count (PLT), fibrinogen (FIB), prothrombin time (PT), thrombin time (TT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), whole blood high shear viscosity (WBHSV), and whole blood low shear viscosity (WBLSV).

Exclusion criteria:

  • 1.

    Studies on salvianolic acid, salvianolic acid A or salvianolic acid B;

  • 2.

    Retrospective studies;

  • 3.

    Review, personal experience and other irrelevant literature;

  • 4.

    Mechanism studies;

  • 5.

    Non-surgical studies;

  • 6.

    Animal experiments.

2.3. Research screening and data extraction

Literature screening and data extraction were independently completed and confirmed by two researchers. The extracted data included the name of the first author, year of publication, type of surgery, medication regimen, outcome indicators, incidence of adverse reactions, etc.

2.4. Risk bias assessment

RCTs were evaluated according to the assessment items in Cochrane risk bias assessment tool:[17] 1. Random sequence generation; 2. Allocation concealment; 3. Blinding of participants and personnel; 4. Blinding of outcome assessment; 5. Incomplete outcome data; 6. Selective reporting; 7. Other bias. “Low bias risk”, “uncertainty of bias risk” and “high bias risk” were used to determine each item.

2.5. Data statistics

We performed this meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.2 software. All data were expressed by weighted mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively. The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. Chi-square test and I2 were used to evaluate heterogeneity. The difference of heterogeneity was statistically significant as P < .1. Random effect model was used for studies with significant heterogeneity of variables. Otherwise, fixed effect model was used.

Subgroup analysis was performed according to the surgery type, administration time and dosage regimen. Sensitivity analysis was carried out by the culling method.

2.6. Ethics and informed consent of patients

This study doesn’t involve any patient's information, so ethical approval and informed consent of patients are not required for this systematic review. Our findings will also be published in peer-reviewed journals.

3. Results

3.1. Literature search and screening

A total of 429 literatures were retrieved in this study. Two hundred duplicate studies were excluded by duplicate check function of Note Express and EndNote software. By browsing the title and abstract, 105 studies were eliminated, including irrelevant 92 studies, 2 studies about mechanism studies and 11 studies about animal experiments. According to full text, 113 studies were excluded, including 106 non-surgical studies, 5 non-relevant studies and 2 non-RCT studies. Finally, 11 studies were included in the study, including 1149 subjects (604 in the experimental group and 545 in the control group), as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of studies identified, included and excluded.

3.2. The basic features of included studies

The basic features of included studies were showed in Table 1. In the eleven included studies, there are five orthopedics studies, three gynecology studies, one liver transplantation study, one lower extremity trauma study, and one ophthalmology study. There are two main outcomes, DVT incidence and incidence of adverse reactions. Eight secondary outcomes, D-D level, PLT, PT, TT, APTT, FIB, WBHSV and WBLSV, were respectively replaced by numbers 1–8.

Table 1.

Basic features of the study included.

Intervention
First author year experiment control Sample size (E/C) Intervention duration Surgery type Outcomes DVT (%, E/C) ADR (%, E/C)
Song SH 2019 sal NS 30/30 2w liver transplantation 2,3,5,6 NA NA
Hai SE 2012 sal NS 113/87 1w lower extremity trauma 1,2,4,5 NA NA
Zheng K 2013 sal NS 30/70 6d gynecology 1,2,5 NA 0/0
Bao JW 2012 sal LMWH 60/60 2w orthopedics NA 15/28.3 NA
Ni Y 2015 sal LMWH 30/30 10d orthopedics 3,4,6 6.7/13.3 NA
Li Y 2019 sal+LMWH LMWH 48/48 3d ophthalmology 1,2,3,5,7,8 0/8.3 NA
Li HJ 2012 sal+LMWH LMWH 30/30 2w orthopedics 2 NA NA
Ye K 2015 sal+LMWH LMWH 103/100 2w orthopedics 1,2,3,5 4.8/11 2.9/4
Zhou HX 2015 sal+LMWH LMWH 40/40 2w orthopedics 1,2,3,5 5/12.5 0/0
Cheng J 2017 sal+LMWH LMWH 50/50 2w gynecology 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 2/30 2/4
Li HS 2018 sal+LMWH LMWH 50/50 1w gynecology 1,2,3,5,6 0/12 NA
Open in a new tab

2 = PLT (platelet count), 3 = PT (prothrombin time), 4 = TT (thrombin time), 5 = APTT (activated partial thromboplastin time), 6 = FIB (fibrinogen), 7 = WBHSV (whole blood high shear viscosity), 8 = WBLSV (whole blood low shear viscosity), C = control group, d = day, E = experimental group, NA = date not vailable, Outcomes: 1 = D-D level (D-dimer level), sal = salvianolate, w = week.

3.3. Outcomes

Meta-analysis of all outcomes was conducted, and the results were showed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Meta-analysis results of salvianolate in preventing postoperative thrombus formation.

Patients No. Statistical heterogeneity Results
Outcomes Study No. (E/C) I2 (%) P value OR/WMD (95% CI) P value
DVT 7 381/378 4 .4 0.27 (0.16, 0.46) <.00001
D-D 7 434/445 97 <.00001 -89.17 (-117.24, -61.10) <.00001
PLT 9 494/505 80 <.00001 -12.15 (-19.26,-5.04) .0008
PT 7 351/348 93 <.00001 0.87 (0.15,1.58) .02
TT 2 143/117 89 .003 0.52 (-1.48,2.52) .61
APTT 4 160/160 61 .05 1.57 (-0.14,3.28) .07
FIB 8 464/475 84 <.00001 -0.32 (-0.49,-0.14) .0005
WBHSV 2 98/98 51 .15 -0.59 (-0.70,-0.47) <.00001
WBLSV 2 98/98 70 .07 -1.6 (-2.86,-0.34) .01
ADR 4 223/260 0 .79 0.65 (0.18,2.35) .51
Open in a new tab

ADR = adverse reaction, APTT = activated partial thromboplastin time, C = control group, D-D = D-dimer level, DVT = Deep-vein thrombosis, E = experimental group, FIB = fibrinogen, PLT = platelet count, PT = prothrombin time, TT = thrombin time, WBHSV = whole blood high shear viscosity, WBLSV = whole blood low shear viscosity.

3.3.1. DVT incidence

Seven studies reported the DVT incidence,[18–24] and the results showed that the DVT incidence of the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group (4.98% and 16.4%, OR: 0.32, 95% CI:[0.16,0.57].P < .00001). There was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 4%, P = .4), and the data were merged using a fixed-effect model. According to the dosage regimen, the subgroup analysis showed that the DVT incidence in salvianolate combined LMWH group was lower than that in LMWH group (2.75% and 14.24%, OR: 0.21, 95% CI: [0.08, 0.53].P = .0009), as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of DVT incidence according to dosage regimen with a fix effect model.

3.3.2. D-D level

Seven studies reported D-D level,[19–21,23–26] and the results showed that the experimental group was significantly lower than the control group (MD: -89.17, 95% CI:[-117.24,-61.10].P < .00001). The study showed significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97%, P < .00001), and the random effects model was adopted. From the results of subgroup analysis according to the surgery type, the dosage regimen and administration time, there were still significantly heterogeneous (Fig. 3 A, B and C). However, after sensitivity analysis by elimination of all literatures one by one, the positive results of effect size were not affected, as shown in Supplemental Table 1, indicating that the analytical results were stable.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of D-D level with a random effect model.

3.3.3. PLT

Nine studies reported PLT,[19–21,23–28] and the results showed that PLT in the experimental group was significantly lower than control group (MD: -12.15, 95% CI:[-19.26,-5.04]. P = .0008). There was significant heterogeneity (I2 = 80%, P < .00001), and the random effects model was adopted. Subgroup analysis according to administration time, showed no significant heterogeneity in each subgroup (Fig. 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of PLT level according to administration time with a random effect model.

3.3.4. PT

Seven studies reported PT.[19–24,28] Results showed that PT in the experimental group was significantly lower than the control group (MD: 0.87,95% CI:[0.15,1.58];P < .05). There was significant heterogeneity (I2 = 93%, P < .00001), and the random effects model was adopted. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the surgery type, and the results showed that there was no significant heterogeneity in each subgroup (Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of PT level according to surgery types with a random effect model.

3.3.5. TT

Two studies reported TT,[22,25] and the results showed no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group (MD: 0.52, 95% CI:[-1.48,2.52];P = .61).

3.3.6. APTT

Four studies reported APTT,[19,20,22,28] and the results showed no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group (MD: 1.57, 95% CI: [-0.14, 3.28];P = .07).

3.3.7. FIB

Eight studies reported FIB,[19–21,23–26,28] and the results showed that FIB in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (MD: -0.32,95% CI:[-0.49,-0.14]; P < .0005). There was significant heterogeneity (I2 = 84%, P < .00001), and the random effects model was adopted. From the results of subgroup analysis according to the surgery type, the dosage regimen and administration time, there were still significant heterogeneity (Fig. 6 A, B and C). However, after sensitivity analysis by elimination of all literatures one by one, the positive results of effect size were not affected (Supplemental Table 2), indicating that the analytical results were stable.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of FIB level with a random effect model.

3.3.8. WBHSV

Two studies reported WBHSV,[19,21] and the results showed that WBHSV in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (MD: -0.59, 95% CI: [-0.70,-0.47]; P < .00001). There was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 51%, P = .15).

3.3.9. BLSV

Two studies reported WBLSV,[19,21] and the results showed that WBLSV in the experimental group was significantly lower than the control group (MD: -1.60, 95% CI: [-2.86,-0.34]; P = .01). The study showed significant heterogeneity (I2 = 70%, P = .07).

3.3.10. Incidence of adverse reactions

Four studies reported the incidence of adverse reactions.[19,23,24,26] As shown in Figure 7, there was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0, P = .79). A fixed-effect model showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group (1.79% and 2.31%, OR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.18, 2.33].P = .79).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of incidence of adverse reactions with a fix effect model.

3.4. Risk bias assessment of included studies

On the whole, the risk bias is moderate as shown in Figure 8 (green means low risk of bias, red means high risk of bias, and yellow means that the risk of bias cannot be determined). In the included studies, 5 studies specifically described the method of random sequence generation and allocation concealment,[19–21,23,28] which were considered as the risk of low bias. The blind method was not described, which was medium risk of bias. There was no loss of follow-up in all studies, and the incomplete of the outcome data was low deviation risk. Selective reporting and other bias were considered as low risk of bias.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Risk bias graph and Risk bias summary.

4. Discussion

This study is the first meta-analysis of RCT studies on salvianolate in the VTE prevention in perioperative period. Our analysis indicated that salvianolate combined with LMWH had significant advantage (2.75% and 14.23%, P = .0009) in preventing thrombus formation after surgery than LMWH alone. The incidence of adverse reactions of salvianolate combined with LMWH was comparable to LMWH (1.79% and 2.31%, P = .51). This analysis including 11 RCTs consisted of five surgery types, gynecology, orthopedics, ophthalmology, liver transplantation, and lower extremity trauma. Outcomes of DVT, D-D, PLT, FIB, PT, WBHSV and WBLSV showed significant difference, while TT and APTT had no significant difference between the experimental group and control group. In terms of the incidence of adverse reactions, four studies were clearly reported and statistically analyzed, while others merely described no significant adverse reactions. These results suggested that salvianolate or combined with LMWH was as safe as control groups for thrombosis prevention.

In our analysis, some studies showed heterogeneity. After subgroup analysis according to the surgery type and administration time, the heterogeneity of PLT and PT was eliminated. For outcomes of D-D and FIB, heterogeneity could not be eliminated through subgroup analysis. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to remove one study at a time, heterogeneity still existed. However, it did not affect the overall results of the two outcomes, indicating that the data were relatively stable. The data from the study ““Zheng K, 2013”“ seemed to be outlier.[26] In this study, thirty subjects were included in the experimental group and seventy subjects in the control group. The sample size varies greatly in the two groups, resulting in low test efficiency, and even false significance. Therefore, the “Mean Difference” was lower than that of other studies, which was reflected in the left outlier in the forest plot.

Salvianolate injection can promote blood circulation, and remove blood stasis. The main pharmacological effects of salvianolate are to reduce the elevation of ST segment of electrocardiogram, reduce the infarct area and reduce the LDH function of serum.[11,29] In addition, it can inhibit ADP-induced platelet aggregation in rats.[30] Salvianolate, the extraction of Danshen, contains mainly magnesium lithospermate B (≥85%), rosmarinic acid (≥10.1%) and lithospermic acid. Salvianolic acid B, one of the highest extract, has been confirmed in the experiments in vivo and in vitro with functions of anti-oxidation, regulating blood lipid, reducing C-reactive protein (CRP) level, inhibiting the large amount of platelet aggregation, and eliminating free radicals.[31] As freeze-dried powder, the properties of salvianolate are more stable. The drug have the following functions: fighting platelet adhesion, reducing CRP level, resisting myocardial ischemia, promoting hemodynamic recovery, reducing ischemia reperfusion injury, promoting blood lipid metabolism, resisting arteriosclerosis, reducing inflammation and improving endothelial cell function.[32] There were lots of animal studies which proved salvianolate affecting cytokine gene expression, cardiomyocytic apoptosis and improving heart function after acute myocardial infarction.[31–34]

Salvianolate, a common drug for stabilizing heart disease and angina pectoris, is considered to be off-label for preventing thromboembolism (VTE) or anticoagulation at present. However, many clinical studies have showed that salvianolate can effectively inhibit the DVT incidence, and prevent VTE of perioperative patients in the real world. The latest studies have proved that salvianolate can inhibit the incidence of DVT, D-D level, platelet aggregation and adhesion, reduce fibrinogen, and prolong PT, TT, as well as APTT.[19–21] Moreover, salvianolate may play an anti-thrombotic role indirectly through relieving postoperative clinical symptoms of pain and swelling, protecting vascular endothelium, and improving hemodynamics, such as WBHSV, plasma viscosity.[19,21,22,35] Salvianolate was off-label medication on VTE prevention, whereas our meta-analysis could provide certain evidence for VTE prevention in perioperative patients to improve rational drug use. In the future, the indication of VTE prevention may be included in the drug instruction or guidance of salvianolate after more high quality and appreciable quantity of RCTs to verify our conclusion.

This analysis also has several limitations: lack of large-scale RCTs, no follow-up information and no detailed description about carrying out blinding. Moreover, there is a grey literature,[26] which can be extracted detailed data. However, it still may cause a certain degree of bias in this analysis. Since the drug is only listed in China, 11 included RCTs are only conducted in China. More worldwide-center and high-quality RCTs are expected to verify the evidence of this analysis.

In conclusion, our analysis showed that salvianolate combined with LMWH had significant advantage than LMWH alone to prevent thrombus after surgery. The incidence of adverse reactions of salvianolate was comparable to LMWH. In view of limited RCTs, researchers should conduct more expanded multicenter trials and high-quality of RCTs, which is beneficial to clinical application of VTE prevention in perioperative period.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Duo-lu Li, Chong-Zhen Qin.

Data curation: Yu-na Chai, Mi Luo, Wei-jie Liang, Duo-lu Li.

Formal analysis: Wei-jie Liang.

Funding acquisition: Chong-Zhen Qin.

Investigation: Mi Luo, Wei-jie Liang, Jian-li Qiu, Cheng-ye Liu.

Methodology: Yu-na Chai, Mi Luo, Wei-jie Liang, Jian-li Qiu, Dangchi Li, Xing Tu.

Resources: Li-chong Wang, Cheng-ye Liu.

Software: Mi Luo, Li-chong Wang.

Supervision: Duo-lu Li.

Validation: Jian-li Qiu, Xing Tu, Cheng-ye Liu.

Visualization: Li-chong Wang.

Writing – original draft: Yu-na Chai.

Writing – review & editing: Dangchi Li, Duo-lu Li.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Digital Content
medi-100-e25639-s001.xlsx (10.6KB, xlsx)

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Digital Content
medi-100-e25639-s002.xlsx (10.4KB, xlsx)

Footnotes

Abbreviations: ADR = adverse reactions, CNKI = China national knowledge infrastructure, D-D = D-dimer level, DVT = deep-vein thrombosis, FIB = fibrinogen, LMWH = low molecular weight heparin, PE = pulmonary embolism, PLT = platelet count, PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, PT = prothrombin time, RCTs = randomized controlled trials, VTE = Venous thromboembolism, WBHSV = whole blood high shear viscosity, WBLSV = whole blood low shear viscosity.

How to cite this article: Chai Yn, Luo M, Liang Wj, Qiu Jl, Li D, Wang Lc, Tu X, Liu Cy, Qin CZ, Li Dl. The safety and effectiveness of salvianolate in preventing perioperative venous thromboembolism in China: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis based on RCTs. Medicine. 2021;100:18(e25639).

This work was supported by foundation projects: National natural science foundation of China (81703780; 81703955); Science and technology project of Henan Province (212102310348; 212102310357); and Youth fund of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (YNQN2017129).

Conflict of interest statement: The author(s) declare no conflict of interest.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the present study. The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the present study are publicly available.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article.

References

  • [1].Geerts WH, Bergqvist D, Pineo GF, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008;133:381S–453S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Trinh VQ, Karakiewicz PI, Sammon J, et al. Venous thromboembolism after major cancer surgery: temporal trends and patterns of care. JAMA Surg 2014;149:43–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Spyropoulos AC, Merli G. Management of venous thromboembolism in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2006;23:651–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Agnelli G. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical patients. Circulation 2004;110:IV4–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Jacobs BN, Cain-Nielsen AH, Jakubus JL, et al. Unfractionated heparin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2017;83:151–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Felder S, Rasmussen MS, King R, et al. Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for abdominal or pelvic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;8:CD004318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141:e227S–77S. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Kashima-Tanaka M, Tsujimoto Y, Kawamoto K, et al. Generation of free radicals and/or active oxygen by light or laser irradiation of hydrogen peroxide or sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 2003;29:141–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Qi JY, Yu J, Huang DH, et al. Salvianolate reduces murine myocardial ischemia and reperfusion injury via ERK1/2 signaling pathways in vivo. Chin J Integr Med 2017;23:40–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Xu J, Fan WH. [Effect of salvianolate on migration of human vascular endothelial cells]. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao 2003;1:211–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Han B, Zhang X, Zhang Q, et al. Protective effects of salvianolate on microvascular flow in a porcine model of myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion. Archiv Cardiovasc Dis 2011;104:313–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Qin CZ, Ren X, Zhou HH, et al. Inhibitory effect of salvianolate on human cytochrome P450 3A4 in vitro involving a noncompetitive manner. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:15549–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].NanZhu Y, AiChun J, Xin L, et al. Salvianolate injection in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e12374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Yan Z, Liu Y, Ruze R, et al. Continuation of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid during perioperative period of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is safe: results of a prospective clinical trial. Hernia 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Groot OQ, Ogink PT, Paulino Pereira NR, et al. High risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after surgery for spine metastatic bone lesions: a retrospective study. Clin Orthopaed Rel Res 2019;477:1674–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Nasser M. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Am J Public Health 2020;110:753–4. [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Bao JW, Wang L, Tu H, et al. Prevention of 36 cases of deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement by salvianolate combined with ankle pump. Jiangxi J Trad ChinMed 2012;43:31–2. [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Cheng J, Lu YL, Zhou YP. Clinical effect of low molecular weight heparin calcium combined with salvianolate on prevention of deep venous thrombosis in lower extremities after gynecological surgery. Matern Child Health Care China 2017;32:2502–5. [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Li HS, Zhao YL, Yu LM. Clinical study on prevention of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis after gynecological operation with multiple measures. Henan Med Res 2018;27:806–8. [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Li Y. The preventive effect of salvianolate combined with low molecular weight heparin on deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities after ophthalmic surgery in advanced age. Biped Health 2019;2:67–8. [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Ni Y, Shen J, Liu ZY, et al. Efficacy of salvianolate in preventing postoperative deep vein thrombosis of lower limb fracture. Chinese J Trad Med Traum Orthop 2015;23:23–5. [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Ye K. Clinical efficacy Observation of low molecular heparin calcium the joint salvianolate lower limb fracture prevention of postoperative deep vein thrombosis. Jilin Med J 2015;36:1060–2. [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Zhou HX, Wang XY, Yang SJ, et al. Effect of low molecular weight heparin combined with salvianolate on prevention of deep vein thrombosis after lower limb fracture. People's Milit Surg 2015;58:1308–9. [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Hai SE, A LM, Pa EH. Salvianolate combined with low molecular weight heparin for preventing deep venous thrombosis in patients with severe lower limb trauma. J Trauma Surg 2012;14:523–6. [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Zheng K. Clinical study of Salvianolate use to prevention of venous thrombosis after gynecologic operation [Master Dissertation]. First Clinical Medical College, Xinjiang Medical University 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Hui Jin Li, Xiao ZQ, Xie YH, et al. The role of salvianolate combined with low molecular weight heparin for preventing deep vein thrombosis in total hip arthroplasty. Chinese J Trad Med Traum & Orthop 2012;20:27–9. [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Song SH, Dong JF, Dong JY, et al. Protective effect of salvianolate against bile duct injury after DCD donor liver transplantation. Med J Chin PLA 2019;44:132–6. [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Dong P, Hu H, Guan X, et al. Cost-consequence analysis of salvianolate injection for the treatment of coronary heart disease. Chin Med 2018;13:28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Liu L, Li J, Zhang Y, et al. Salvianolic acid B inhibits platelets as a P2Y12 antagonist and PDE inhibitor: evidence from clinic to laboratory. Thromb Res 2014;134:866–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Yang DH, Ye ZY, Jin B, et al. Salvianolate inhibits cytokine gene expression in small intestine of cirrhotic rats. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:1903–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Wu WY, Wang YP. Pharmacological actions and therapeutic applications of Salvia miltiorrhiza depside salt and its active components. Acta pharmacologica Sinica 2012;33:1119–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Wang MW, Zhang DF, Tang JJ, et al. Effects of salvianolate on cardiomyocytes apoptosis and heart function in a swine model of acute myocardial infarction [in Chinese]. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao 2009;7:140–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Li P. Salvia polyphenol salt coagulated with decompensated cirrhosis. Guide J Trad Chin Med Pharm 2009;6:22–4. [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Zhao YL, Li HS. Observation on the clinical efficacy of danshen polyphenolic salt combined with low molecular weight heparin calcium in preventing lower extremity deep venous thrombosis after gynecological surgery. Chin J Mod Drug Appl 2017;11:114–6. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Digital Content
medi-100-e25639-s001.xlsx (10.6KB, xlsx)
Supplemental Digital Content
medi-100-e25639-s002.xlsx (10.4KB, xlsx)

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES