Literature DB >> 18158080

Meta-analysis of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically Ill patients.

Abir O Kanaan1, Matthew A Silva, Jennifer L Donovan, Tara Roy, A Samer Al-Homsi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in medically ill patients has received a level 1A recommendation in previously published clinical guidelines. Pharmacologic prophylaxis for VTE includes unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and fondaparinux. Few direct comparisons between anticoagulants exist in medically ill patients.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was conducted to assess UFH and LMWH (including the selective factor Xa inhibitor fondaparinux) in the reduction of in-hospital VTE in unselected medically ill patients.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry databases from January 1981 through September 2007 (English language) for randomized controlled trials using the following terms: dalteparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, nadroparin, and heparin. References of included articles and key review papers for additional studies were also searched. Data from studies were included in the analysis if the studies included medically ill patients with risk factors for VTE who had been followed up for 7 to 21 days.
RESULTS: A total of 12,391 patients (of whom 8357 were in placebo-controlled trials) from 9 studies were included. Mean age for the entire cohort was 72.8 years; mean (SD) body mass index, 25.6 kg/m2; and mean (SD) actual body weight, 68.2 kg. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was significantly reduced with the addition of an LMWH compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75; P < or = 0.001), but rates of DVT were similar when comparing LMWH with UFH (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.56-1.52). No significant differences in pulmonary embolism (PE) or death were found among the UFH, LMWH, and placebo groups. LMWH was associated with a significant increased risk for minor bleeding compared with placebo (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.18-2.29; P = 0.003). However, no significant difference was found between LMWH and UFH (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.27-1.70). Major bleeding events were similar among all groups: LMWH/fondaparinux versus placebo, OR, 1.65 (95% CI, 0.8-3.4); LMWH/fondaparinux versus UFH, OR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.29-1.68); LMWH/fondaparinux versus UFH or placebo, OR, 1.16 (95% CI, 0.66-2.04).
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that VTE prophylaxis with an LMWH (including fondaparinux) or UFH is effective in reducing the rate of DVT, but this benefit did not extend to enhanced protection against PE. Additionally, LMWH and UFH had similar bleeding outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18158080     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.11.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  27 in total

1.  High Risk of Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism After Surgery for Spine Metastatic Bone Lesions: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Olivier Q Groot; Paul T Ogink; Nuno Rei Paulino Pereira; Marco L Ferrone; Mitchell B Harris; Santiago A Lozano-Calderon; Andrew J Schoenfeld; Joseph H Schwab
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  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

Review 3.  Venous thromboembolism in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

Authors:  S Chaturvedi; A Neff; A Nagler; U Savani; M Mohty; B N Savani
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 5.483

Review 4.  Postoperative Acute Pulmonary Embolism Following Pulmonary Resections.

Authors:  Felix Samuel Shonyela; Shuangqiang Yang; Bo Liu; Jia Jiao
Journal:  Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 1.520

5.  PROF-ETEV study: prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic disease in critical care units in Spain.

Authors:  Pablo García-Olivares; Jose Eugenio Guerrero; Pedro Galdos; Demetrio Carriedo; Francisco Murillo; Antonio Rivera
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  A natural language processing algorithm to define a venous thromboembolism phenotype.

Authors:  Eugenia R McPeek Hinz; Lisa Bastarache; Joshua C Denny
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

7.  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

Review 8.  Venous thromboembolism in cirrhosis.

Authors:  Zhineng J Yang; Karen A Costa; Enrico M Novelli; Roy E Smith
Journal:  Clin Appl Thromb Hemost       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 2.389

Review 9.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients and outpatients.

Authors:  Gregg J Stashenko; Victor F Tapson
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 32.419

10.  Assessment of risk and prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in medically ill patients during their early days of hospital stay at a tertiary care center in a developing country.

Authors:  Ambarish Pandey; Nivedita Patni; Mansher Singh; Randeep Guleria
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2009-08-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.