Literature DB >> 15495007

Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism.

C J J van Dongen, A G M van den Belt, M H Prins, A W A Lensing.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been shown to be effective and safe in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and may also be effective for the initial treatment of VTE.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of LMWH compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the initial treatment of VTE. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified from the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL and LILACS. Colleagues and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH with adjusted dose intravenous or subcutaneous UFH in people with VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two reviewers assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data independently. MAIN
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included (n = 8867). Thrombotic complications occurred in 151/4181 (3.6%) participants treated with LMWH, compared with 211/3941 (5.4%) participants treated with UFH (odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.55 to 0.84, 18 trials). Thrombus size was reduced in 53% of participants treated with LMWH and 45% treated with UFH (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81, 12 trials). Major haemorrhages occurred in 41/3500 (1.2%) participants treated with LMWH, compared with 73/3624 (2.0%) participants treated with UFH (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83, 19 trials). In eighteen trials, 187/4193 (4.5%) participants treated with LMWH died, compared with 233/3861 (6.0%) participants treated with UFH (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92). Nine studies (n = 4451) examined proximal thrombosis; 2192 participants treated with LMWH and 2259 with UFH. Subgroup analysis showed statistically significant reductions favouring LMWH in thrombotic complications and major haemorrhage. By the end of follow up, 80 (3.6%) participants treated with LMWH had thrombotic complications, compared with 143 (6.3%) treated with UFH (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.75). Major haemorrhage occurred in 18 (1.0%) participants treated with LMWH, compared with 37 (2.1%) treated with UFH (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.85). Nine studies (n = 4157) showed a statistically significant reduction favouring LMWH with respect to mortality. By the end of follow up, 3.3% (70/2094) of participants treated with LMWH had died, compared with 5.3% (110/2063) of participants treated with UFH (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84). REVIEWERS'
CONCLUSIONS: LMWH is more effective than UFH for the initial treatment of VTE. LMWH significantly reduces the occurrence of major haemorrhage during initial treatment and overall mortality at follow up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15495007     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001100.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  42 in total

1.  Some essential considerations in the design and conduct of non-inferiority trials.

Authors:  Thomas R Fleming; Katherine Odem-Davis; Mark D Rothmann; Yuan Li Shen
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 2.  Parenteral anticoagulants: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  David A Garcia; Trevor P Baglin; Jeffrey I Weitz; Meyer Michel Samama
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Anthony J Comerota; Paolo Prandoni; Henri Bounameaux; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael E Nelson; Philip S Wells; Michael K Gould; Francesco Dentali; Mark Crowther; Susan R Kahn
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 4.  [Bridging anticoagulation].

Authors:  S M Schellong; K Halbritter; S Haas
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 5.  A systematic review of Cochrane anticoagulation reviews.

Authors:  David Keith Cundiff
Journal:  Medscape J Med       Date:  2009-01-06

6.  How to handle low-molecular-weight heparins in patients with decreased renal function: an open issue.

Authors:  Giuseppe Stefano Netti; Maurizio Margaglione; Loreto Gesualdo
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 3.397

7.  Enoxaparin Dosing and AntiXa Monitoring in Specialty Populations: A Case Series of Renal-Impaired, Extremes of Body Weight, Pregnant, and Pediatric Patients.

Authors:  Tania Ahuja; Katie Mariam Mousavi; Liana Klejmont; Sonya Desai
Journal:  P T       Date:  2018-10

Review 8.  Prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation for thrombosis: major issues in oncology.

Authors:  Marc Carrier; Agnes Y Y Lee
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Oncol       Date:  2008-10-28

Review 9.  Low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with chronic renal insufficiency.

Authors:  Wendy Lim
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 10.  Using low molecular weight heparin in special patient populations.

Authors:  Wendy Lim
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.