Background: Enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin approved for prophylaxis in patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), offers several advantages compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Enoxaparin is primarily excreted through renal elimination and is currently not recommended in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) due to potential increased bleeding complications. To date, there are limited safety and efficacy data supporting the use of enoxaparin in this patient population for VTE prophylaxis. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin with UFH for deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis in medically ill HD patients. Methods and Results: This retrospective cohort study examined medically ill patients who received HD and were concomitantly prescribed enoxaparin or UFH for at least 2 consecutive days for VTE prophylaxis. A total of 225 patients (150 received UFH and 75 received enoxaparin) were evaluated in chronological order. The primary outcome was a composite of major, clinically relevant nonmajor, and minor bleeding based on International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding definitions. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of a confirmed thrombotic event. Baseline characteristics were similar between the cohorts. One patient in each cohort had a documented bleed (UFH = 0.7%, enoxaparin = 1.3%, P > .05) during the admission assessed; however, neither bleed was related to the prophylactic agent utilized. No patients developed a VTE during the index hospitalization. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that enoxaparin may be as safe and effective as UFH for VTE prophylaxis in medically ill patients receiving HD.
Background: Enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin approved for prophylaxis in patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), offers several advantages compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Enoxaparin is primarily excreted through renal elimination and is currently not recommended in patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) due to potential increased bleeding complications. To date, there are limited safety and efficacy data supporting the use of enoxaparin in this patient population for VTE prophylaxis. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin with UFH for deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) prophylaxis in medically ill HDpatients. Methods and Results: This retrospective cohort study examined medically ill patients who received HD and were concomitantly prescribed enoxaparin or UFH for at least 2 consecutive days for VTE prophylaxis. A total of 225 patients (150 received UFH and 75 received enoxaparin) were evaluated in chronological order. The primary outcome was a composite of major, clinically relevant nonmajor, and minor bleeding based on International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding definitions. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of a confirmed thrombotic event. Baseline characteristics were similar between the cohorts. One patient in each cohort had a documented bleed (UFH = 0.7%, enoxaparin = 1.3%, P > .05) during the admission assessed; however, neither bleed was related to the prophylactic agent utilized. No patients developed a VTE during the index hospitalization. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that enoxaparin may be as safe and effective as UFH for VTE prophylaxis in medically ill patients receiving HD.
Authors: S Barbar; F Noventa; V Rossetto; A Ferrari; B Brandolin; M Perlati; E De Bon; D Tormene; A Pagnan; P Prandoni Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.824