Literature DB >> 28182249

Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism.

Lindsay Robertson1, Lauren E Jones1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have been shown to be effective and safe in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE). They may also be effective for the initial treatment of VTE. This is the third update of the Cochrane Review first published in 1999.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin compared to adjusted dose unfractionated heparin (intravenous or subcutaneous) for the initial treatment of people with venous thromboembolism (acute deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). SEARCH
METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (15 September 2016). In addition the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 September 2016) and trials' registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH with adjusted dose intravenous or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (UFH) in people with VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed for quality and extracted data. MAIN
RESULTS: Six studies were added to this update resulting in a total of 29 included studies (n = 10,390). The quality of the studies was downgraded as there was a risk of bias in some individual studies relating to risk of attrition and reporting bias; in addition several studies did not adequately report on the randomisation methods used nor on how the treatment allocation was concealed.During the initial treatment period, the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolic events was lower in participants treated with LMWH than in participants treated with UFH (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.49 to 0.98; 6238 participants; 18 studies; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). After a follow-up of three months, the period in most of the studies for which oral anticoagulant therapy was given, the incidence of recurrent VTE was lower in participants treated with LMWH than in participants with UFH (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90; 6661 participants; 16 studies; P = 0.005; moderate-quality evidence). Furthermore, at the end of follow-up, LMWH was associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE than UFH (Peto OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 9489 participants; 22 studies; P = 0.001; moderate-quality evidence). LMWH was also associated with a reduction in thrombus size compared to UFH (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.82; 2909 participants; 16 studies; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence), but there was moderate heterogeneity (I² = 56%). Major haemorrhages occurred less frequently in participants treated with LMWH than in those treated with UFH (Peto OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95; 8780 participants; 25 studies; P = 0.02; moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in overall mortality between participants treated with LMWH and those treated with UFH (Peto OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 9663 participants; 24 studies; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: This review presents moderate-quality evidence that fixed dose LMWH reduced the incidence of recurrent thrombotic complications and occurrence of major haemorrhage during initial treatment; and low-quality evidence that fixed dose LMWH reduced thrombus size when compared to UFH for the initial treatment of VTE. There was no difference in overall mortality between participants treated with LMWH and those treated with UFH (moderate-quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria and downgraded due to concerns over risk of bias in individual trials together with a lack of reporting on the randomisation and concealment of treatment allocation methods used. The quality of the evidence for reduction of thrombus size was further downgraded because of heterogeneity between studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28182249      PMCID: PMC6464611          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001100.pub4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  67 in total

1.  Hemostatic activation under anticoagulant treatment: a comparison of unfractionated heparin vs. nadroparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  H Stricker; O Marchetti; A Haeberli; G Mombelli
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.249

2.  Fixed-dose, body weight-independent subcutaneous LMW heparin versus adjusted dose unfractionated intravenous heparin in the initial treatment of proximal venous thrombosis. EASTERN Investigators.

Authors:  J Harenberg; J A Schmidt; K Koppenhagen; A Tolle; M V Huisman; H R Büller
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.249

3.  Low-molecular-weight heparin vs heparin in the treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism. American-Canadian Thrombosis Study Group.

Authors:  R D Hull; G E Raskob; R F Brant; G F Pineo; G Elliott; P D Stein; A Gottschalk; K A Valentine; A F Mah
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-01-24

4.  Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin, administered primarily at home, with unfractionated heparin, administered in hospital, and subcutaneous heparin, administered at home for deep-vein thrombosis.

Authors:  G Belcaro; A N Nicolaides; M R Cesarone; G Laurora; M T De Sanctis; L Incandela; A Barsotti; M Corsi; S Vasdekis; D Christopoulos; A Lennox; M Malouf
Journal:  Angiology       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.619

Review 5.  Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  A G van Den Belt; M H Prins; A W Lensing; A A Castro; O A Clark; A N Atallah; E Burihan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

6.  Effects of a low-molecular-weight heparin on thrombus regression and recurrent thromboembolism in patients with deep-vein thrombosis.

Authors:  H K Breddin; V Hach-Wunderle; R Nakov; V V Kakkar
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Clinical risk factors and timing of recurrent venous thromboembolism during the initial 3 months of anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  J D Douketis; G A Foster; M A Crowther; M H Prins; J S Ginsberg
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000 Dec 11-25

8.  [Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis].

Authors:  J J Moreno-Palomares; R M Fisac-Herrero; A Herrero-Domingo; E M Ferreira-Pasos; J Grasa; D Reverte-Cejudo
Journal:  An Med Interna       Date:  2001-07

9.  Cost for inpatient care of venous thrombosis: a trial of enoxaparin vs standard heparin.

Authors:  G de Lissovoy; R D Yusen; T E Spiro; W C Krupski; A H Champion; S V Sorensen
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-11-13

10.  Subcutaneous enoxaparin once or twice daily compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin for treatment of venous thromboembolic disease.

Authors:  G Merli; T E Spiro; C G Olsson; U Abildgaard; B L Davidson; A Eldor; D Elias; A Grigg; D Musset; G M Rodgers; A A Trowbridge; R D Yusen; K Zawilska
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-02-06       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  25 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of All-Cause Mortality Following VTE Treatment Between Propensity Score-Adjusted Observational Studies and Matched Randomized Controlled Trials: Meta-Epidemiologic Study.

Authors:  Claudia Coscia; Ana Jaureguizar; Carlos Andres Quezada; Alfonso Muriel; Manuel Monreal; Tomas Villén; Esther Barbero; Diana Chiluiza; Roger D Yusen; David Jimenez
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 2.  Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  Richard Othieno; Emmanuel Okpo; Rachel Forster
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-01-09

3.  SEOM clinical guideline of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer (2019).

Authors:  A J Muñoz Martín; E Gallardo Díaz; I García Escobar; R Macías Montero; V Martínez-Marín; V Pachón Olmos; P Pérez Segura; T Quintanar Verdúguez; M Salgado Fernández
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 3.405

4.  3-O sulfation of heparin leads to hepatotropism and longer circulatory half-life.

Authors:  Colton M Miller; Yongmei Xu; Katrina M Kudrna; Blake E Hass; Brianna M Kellar; Andrew W Egger; Jian Liu; Edward N Harris
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 3.944

Review 5.  Diagnosis and management of cerebral venous thrombosis.

Authors:  Roya Behrouzi; Martin Punter
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.659

6.  Contemporary Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism: Medical Treatment and Management.

Authors:  Stephen Moreland; Debabrata Mukherjee; Nils P Nickel
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2022-07-19

Review 7.  When Pigs Fly: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Navigating a Critical Heparin Shortage.

Authors:  Rachel P Rosovsky; Megan E Barra; Russel J Roberts; Alison Parmar; Jennifer Andonian; Larren Suh; Suzanne Algeri; Paul D Biddinger
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-03-10

Review 8.  Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer.

Authors:  Maram B Hakoum; Lara A Kahale; Ibrahim G Tsolakian; Charbel F Matar; Victor Ed Yosuico; Irene Terrenato; Francesca Sperati; Maddalena Barba; Holger Schünemann; Elie A Akl
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-01-24

9.  The outcomes of pregnant and postpartum patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  Shi-Hui Meng; Jing-Hua Li; Li-Jun Zuo; Li-Min Feng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Application of the RCOG Risk Assessment Model for Evaluating Postpartum Venous Thromboembolism in Chinese Women: A Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Ying-Zhou Ge; Chen Zhang; Yan-Qing Cai; He-Feng Huang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2021-07-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.