Literature DB >> 17646601

Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lironne Wein1, Sara Wein, Steven Joseph Haas, James Shaw, Henry Krum.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding which pharmacological agents most effectively prevent venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to determine this.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1950, 1966, and 1800, respectively, through June 30, 2006, for randomized controlled trials that involved medical patients comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin or heparinoid (LMWH) with a control, LMWH with UFH, or selective factor Xa inhibitors with a comparator. Study selection, validity assessment, and data abstraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers (L.W. and S.W.). Data synthesis was undertaken by 1 blinded investigator (S.J.H.).
RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included. Compared with the control, UFH was associated with a reduced risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (risk ratio [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.42) and pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82), as was LMWH (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70; and RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64, respectively). A UFH dosage of 5000 U 3 times daily was more effective in preventing DVT than a UFH dosage of 5000 U twice daily when compared with the control (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.36; vs RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.96). Neither UFH nor LMWH reduced mortality. When directly compared with UFH, LMWH was associated with a lower risk of DVT (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88) and injection site hematoma (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62), but no difference was seen between the 2 agents in the risk of bleeding or thrombocytopenia.
CONCLUSIONS: Both UFH and LMWH reduce venous thromboembolic risk in hospitalized medical patients, but neither agent alters mortality. When directly compared, LMWH is more effective in preventing DVT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17646601     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.167.14.1476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  37 in total

Review 1.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin in the hospitalized medical patient: the case for thrice daily over twice daily dosing.

Authors:  Charles E Mahan; Mario Pini; Alex C Spyropoulos
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 2.  Approach to outcome measurement in the prevention of thrombosis in surgical and medical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; John W Eikelboom; Michael K Gould; David A Garcia; Mark Crowther; M Hassan Murad; Susan R Kahn; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Charles W Francis; Maarten G Lansberg; Elie A Akl; Jack Hirsh
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among medical patients at US hospitals.

Authors:  Michael B Rothberg; Maureen Lahti; Penelope S Pekow; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Thromboprophylaxis with the low-molecular-weight heparin bemiparin sodium in elderly medical patients in usual clinical practice: the ANCIANOS study.

Authors:  Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas; Ricardo Gómez-Huelgas; Fernando Veiga-Fernández; Gema Monteagudo Ruiz; Javier Martínez González
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.859

5.  The use of pharmacological prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with severe active ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  J L Pleet; B P Vaughn; J A Morris; A C Moss; A S Cheifetz
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 8.171

Review 6.  Thrombotic Risk and Covid-19: Review of Current Evidence for a Better Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach.

Authors:  Raquel López-Reyes; Grace Oscullo; David Jiménez; Irene Cano; Alberto García-Ortega
Journal:  Arch Bronconeumol       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Physicians' perceptions of risks and practices in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Justina J Sam; Charles N Bernstein; Roshan Razik; Reka Thanabalan; Geoffrey C Nguyen
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-10-07       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Effect of medical thromboprophylaxis on mortality from pulmonary embolus and major bleedingy.

Authors:  J Alasdair Millar
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2015-09-30

9.  American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Mary Cushman; Allison E Burnett; Susan R Kahn; Jan Beyer-Westendorf; Frederick A Spencer; Suely M Rezende; Neil A Zakai; Kenneth A Bauer; Francesco Dentali; Jill Lansing; Sara Balduzzi; Andrea Darzi; Gian Paolo Morgano; Ignacio Neumann; Robby Nieuwlaat; Juan J Yepes-Nuñez; Yuan Zhang; Wojtek Wiercioch
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-11-27

10.  Venous thromboembolic events in hospitalised medical patients.

Authors:  Gregory Piazza; John Fanikos; Maksim Zayaruzny; Samuel Z Goldhaber
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.249

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.