Literature DB >> 20218984

A randomized, double-blind study of certoparin vs. unfractionated heparin to prevent venous thromboembolic events in acutely ill, non-surgical patients: CERTIFY Study.

H Riess1, S Haas, U Tebbe, H-E Gerlach, C Abletshauser, C Sieder, S Rossol, B Pfeiffer, S M Schellong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In medically ill patients, no contemporary double-blind head-to-head evaluation of low molecular weight heparin vs. unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the prevention of venous thromboembolic events is available.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of certoparin with those of UFH. PATIENTS/
METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, acutely ill, non-surgical patients aged > or = 70 years were randomized to certoparin (3000 U of anti-factor Xa once daily) or to UFH (5000 IU t.i.d.). The primary endpoint was the composite of proximal deep vein thrombosis as assessed by bilateral compression ultrasonography, symptomatic non-fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thromboembolism-related death, and was assessed by a blinded central adjudication committee. Non-inferiority margins were set at 1.8 for the odds ratio (OR) and 3.45% for the absolute difference.
RESULTS: Three thousand two hundred and thirty-nine patients aged 78.8 + or - 6.3 years were treated for 9.1 + or - 3.4 days. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 3.94% in the certoparin group and 4.52% in the UFH group, with a difference in proportions of - 0.59% [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.09 to 0.92; P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority], and an OR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.60-1.26; P = 0.0001 for non-inferiority). Major bleeding occurred in 0.43% of certoparin-treated patients and 0.62% of UFH-treated patients (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.26-1.83). Any bleeding occurred at 3.20% in certoparin-treated patients vs. 4.58% in UFH-treated patients (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.99; P < 0.05), and 5.73% of certoparin-treated patients and 6.63% of UFH-treated patients experienced serious adverse events. All-cause mortality was 1.27% in certoparin-treated patients and 1.36% in UFH-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In acutely ill, non-surgical elderly patients, thromboprophylaxis with certoparin (3000 U of anti-FXa once daily) was non-inferior to 5000 IU of UFH t.i.d., with a favorable safety profile.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20218984     DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03848.x

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


  19 in total

1.  Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Susan R Kahn; Wendy Lim; Andrew S Dunn; Mary Cushman; Francesco Dentali; Elie A Akl; Deborah J Cook; Alex A Balekian; Russell C Klein; Hoang Le; Sam Schulman; M Hassan Murad
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Hotlines and clinical trial updates presented at the German Cardiac Society Meeting 2010: FAIR-HF, CIPAMI, LIPSIA-NSTEMI, Handheld-BNP, PEPCAD III, remote ischaemic conditioning, CERTIFY, PreSCD-II, German Myocardial Infarction Registry, DiaRegis.

Authors:  Janine Pöss; Claudius Jacobshagen; Christian Ukena; Michael Böhm
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2010-05-25       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  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 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.  [Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for urological operations].

Authors:  G Lümmen; C Fischer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  Effect of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulant drugs on the incidence of arterial thrombotic events in medical inpatients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alessandro Squizzato; Federico Lussana; Walter Ageno; Marco Cattaneo
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 7.  Primary prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic events in patients with gastrointestinal cancers - Review.

Authors:  Hanno Riess; Piet Habbel; Anja Jühling; Marianne Sinn; Uwe Pelzer
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2016-03-15

Review 8.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically ill patients: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Authors:  Majed S Al Yami; Matthew A Silva; Jennifer L Donovan; Abir O Kanaan
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.300

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.  [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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.