Literature DB >> 16796710

A randomized study comparing the efficacy and safety of nadroparin 2850 IU (0.3 mL) vs. enoxaparin 4000 IU (40 mg) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after colorectal surgery for cancer.

G Simonneau1, S Laporte, P Mismetti, A Derlon, K Samii, C-M Samama, J-F Bergman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal thromboprophylactic dosage regimen of low-molecular-weight heparins in high-risk general surgery remains debatable.
OBJECTIVES: We performed a randomized, double-blind study to compare the efficacy and safety of nadroparin 2850 IU (0.3 mL) and enoxaparin 4000 IU (40 mg) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after colorectal surgery for cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of colorectal adenocarcinoma were randomized to receive once daily either 2850 IU nadroparin or 4000 IU enoxaparin s.c. for 9 +/- 2 days. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) detected by bilateral venography or documented symptomatic DVT or pulmonary embolism up to day 12. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. A blinded independent committee adjudicated all outcomes.
RESULTS: Out of 1288 patients analyzed, efficacy was evaluable in 950 (73.8%) patients. The VTE rate was 15.9% (74/464) in nadroparin-treated patients and 12.6% (61/486) in enoxaparin-treated patients, a relative risk of 1.27 (95% confidence interval; CI: 0.93-1.74) that did not met the criterion for non-inferiority of nadroparin. The rate of proximal DVT was comparable in the two groups (3.2% vs. 2.9%, respectively), but that of symptomatic VTE was lower in nadroparin-treated patients (0.2% vs. 1.4%). There was significantly (P = 0.012) less major bleeding in nadroparin- than in enoxaparin-treated patients (7.3% vs. 11.5%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Compared with those receiving enoxaparin 4000 IU, patients treated with nadroparin 2850 IU showed a higher incidence of asymptomatic distal DVT, but a lower incidence of symptomatic VTE. Nadroparin treatment was safer in terms of bleeding risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16796710     DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.02083.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thromb Haemost        ISSN: 1538-7836            Impact factor:   5.824


  21 in total

1.  Canadian consensus recommendations on the management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Part 1: prophylaxis.

Authors:  J C Easaw; M A Shea-Budgell; C M J Wu; P M Czaykowski; J Kassis; B Kuehl; H J Lim; M MacNeil; D Martinusen; P A McFarlane; E Meek; O Moodley; S Shivakumar; V Tagalakis; S Welch; P Kavan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Thromboembolic Complications and Prophylaxis Patterns in Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Daniel W Nelson; Vlad V Simianu; Amir L Bastawrous; Richard P Billingham; Alessandro Fichera; Michael G Florence; Eric K Johnson; Morris G Johnson; Richard C Thirlby; David R Flum; Scott R Steele
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 14.766

3.  Assessment of Anti-Factor Xa Levels of Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery Given Once-Daily Enoxaparin Prophylaxis: A Clinical Study Examining Enoxaparin Pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  Christopher J Pannucci; Kory I Fleming; Corinne B Bertolaccini; Ann Marie Prazak; Lyen C Huang; T Bartley Pickron
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 4.  Guidelines for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism among patients with cancer.

Authors:  Nicole M Kuderer; Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 3.944

5.  Procedure-specific venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a paradigm from colectomy surgery.

Authors:  Peter K Henke; Shipra Arya; Chris Pannucci; Jim Kubus; Samantha Hendren; Michael Engelsbe; Darrell Campbell
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Preoperative Chemoprophylaxis is Safe in Major Oncology Operations and Effective at Preventing Venous Thromboembolism.

Authors:  Luke V Selby; Mindy Sovel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Margaret McSweeney; Damon Douglas; David R Jones; Peter T Scardino; Gerald A Soff; Nicola Fabbri; Kent Sepkowitz; Vivian E Strong; Inderpal S Sarkaria
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 7.  Venous thromboembolism in the patient with cancer: focus on burden of disease and benefits of thromboprophylaxis.

Authors:  Gary H Lyman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 6.860

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

9.  [Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. Clinical value of low-molecular-weight heparins].

Authors:  S Kreher; H Riess
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 10.  The potential benefits of low-molecular-weight heparins in cancer patients.

Authors:  Francisco Robert
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 17.388

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.