PURPOSE: To compare benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) as thromboprophylaxis in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH with UFH as thromboprophylaxis in adult ICU patients. We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, UpToDate, Guidelines International Network, PROSPERO and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials through 3 December 2014. Random effects risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for the endpoints deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, mortality and net clinical benefit (any DVT, any PE, major bleeding and/or mortality). RESULTS: Eight RCTs (5567 patients) were included, whereof two were considered to have overall low risk of bias. Pooled analyses showed that LMWH compared with UFH reduced the risk of any DVT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.98, p = 0.03) and resulted in a net clinical benefit (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, p = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of any PE (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41-1.03, p = 0.06), major bleeding (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77-1.28, p = 0.96) or mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.12, p = 0.43). TSA supported the results of the conventional analysis on the outcome net clinical benefit but not on risk of any DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this systematic review revealed a beneficial effect of LMWH compared with UFH when used as thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients.
PURPOSE: To compare benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) as thromboprophylaxis in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH with UFH as thromboprophylaxis in adult ICU patients. We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, UpToDate, Guidelines International Network, PROSPERO and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials through 3 December 2014. Random effects risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived for the endpoints deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, mortality and net clinical benefit (any DVT, any PE, major bleeding and/or mortality). RESULTS: Eight RCTs (5567 patients) were included, whereof two were considered to have overall low risk of bias. Pooled analyses showed that LMWH compared with UFH reduced the risk of any DVT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.98, p = 0.03) and resulted in a net clinical benefit (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, p = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of any PE (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41-1.03, p = 0.06), major bleeding (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77-1.28, p = 0.96) or mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.12, p = 0.43). TSA supported the results of the conventional analysis on the outcome net clinical benefit but not on risk of any DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this systematic review revealed a beneficial effect of LMWH compared with UFH when used as thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients.
Authors: Deborah Cook; Mark Crowther; Maureen Meade; Christian Rabbat; Lauren Griffith; David Schiff; William Geerts; Gordon Guyatt Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Kristian Thorlund; Georgina Imberger; Michael Walsh; Rong Chu; Christian Gluud; Jørn Wetterslev; Gordon Guyatt; Philip J Devereaux; Lehana Thabane Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuk Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Markus B Skrifvars; Michael Bailey; Jeffrey Presneill; Craig French; Alistair Nichol; Lorraine Little; Jacques Duranteau; Olivier Huet; Samir Haddad; Yaseen Arabi; Colin McArthur; D James Cooper; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ruben J Eck; Wouter Bult; Jørn Wetterslev; Reinold O B Gans; Karina Meijer; Iwan C C van der Horst; Frederik Keus Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Johannes Gratz; André Pausch; Eva Schaden; Andreas Baierl; Peter Jaksch; Friedrich Erhart; Konrad Hoetzenecker; Marion Wiegele Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 3.094