BACKGROUND: This prospective, multicenter study compared low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) with enoxaparin for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) during the rehabilitation phase after spinal cord injury. METHODS: After 2 weeks of acute-phase prophylaxis, patients without objective evidence of VTE entered the rehabilitation phase and received up to 6 additional weeks of thromboprophylaxis with either UFH 5,000 U every 8 hours or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. Patients then underwent repeat bilateral lower extremity duplex ultrasonography. RESULTS: Among 119 patients who completed the rehabilitation phase and had adequate imaging, new VTE was demonstrated in 13 of 60 UFH versus 5 of 59 enoxaparin patients (21.7% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.052). Only one patient from each group was discontinued from the study because of bleeding. CONCLUSION: In this nonrandomized comparison, enoxaparin appeared more effective than heparin in the prevention of thromboembolic complications during rehabilitation after spinal cord injury. Both interventions were safe in this population.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This prospective, multicenter study compared low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) with enoxaparin for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) during the rehabilitation phase after spinal cord injury. METHODS: After 2 weeks of acute-phase prophylaxis, patients without objective evidence of VTE entered the rehabilitation phase and received up to 6 additional weeks of thromboprophylaxis with either UFH 5,000 U every 8 hours or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. Patients then underwent repeat bilateral lower extremity duplex ultrasonography. RESULTS: Among 119 patients who completed the rehabilitation phase and had adequate imaging, new VTE was demonstrated in 13 of 60 UFH versus 5 of 59 enoxaparinpatients (21.7% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.052). Only one patient from each group was discontinued from the study because of bleeding. CONCLUSION: In this nonrandomized comparison, enoxaparin appeared more effective than heparin in the prevention of thromboembolic complications during rehabilitation after spinal cord injury. Both interventions were safe in this population.
Authors: Magdalena Mackiewicz-Milewska; Stanisław Jung; Andrzej C Kroszczyński; Hanna Mackiewicz-Nartowicz; Zbigniew Serafin; Małgorzata Cisowska-Adamiak; Jerzy Pyskir; Iwona Szymkuć-Bukowska; Wojciech Hagner; Danuta Rość Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Robert W Teasell; Jane T Hsieh; Jo-Anne L Aubut; Janice J Eng; Andrei Krassioukov; Linh Tu Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Scott Worley; Christine Short; Jeff Pike; David Anderson; Jo-Anne Douglas; Kara Thompson Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Sabine Eichinger; Lisbeth Eischer; Hana Sinkovec; Gabriela Wittgruber; Ludwig Traby; Michael Kammer; Paul A Kyrle; Oskar Steinbrecher; Herbert Kaloud; Victoria Kyrle; Hartwig Moser; Renate Wildburger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paul M Arnold; James S Harrop; Geno Merli; Lindsay G Tetreault; Brian K Kwon; Steve Casha; Katherine Palmieri; Jefferson R Wilson; Michael G Fehlings; Haley K Holmer; Daniel C Norvell Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2017-09-05