Subcutaneous Low Molecular Weight Heparin versus Subcutaneous Unfractionated Heparin in the Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis: a Polish Multicenter Trial

Bleeding Risk in Elderly Patients with Venous Thromboembolism Who Would Have Been Excluded from Anticoagulation Trials

Older patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are underrepresented in clinical anticoagulation trials. We examined to which extent elderly patients with VTE would be excluded from such trials and compared the bleeding risk between hypothetically excluded and enrolled patients. We studied 991 patients aged ≥65 years with acute VTE in a prospective multicenter cohort. We identified 12 landmark VTE oral anticoagulation trials from the eighth and updated ninth American College of Chest Physician Guidelines. For each trial, we abstracted the exclusion criteria and calculated the proportion of our study patients who would have been excluded from trial participation. We examined the association between five common exclusion criteria (hemodynamic instability, high bleeding risk, comorbidity, co-medication, and invasive treatments) and major bleeding (MB) within 36 months using competing risk regression, adjusting for age, sex, and periods of anticoagulation. A median of 31% (range: 20-52%) of our patients would have been excluded from participation in the landmark trials. Hemodynamic instability (sub-hazard ratio [SHR]: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1-4.7), comorbidity (SHR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.2), and co-medication (SHR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.3) were associated with MB. Compared to eligible patients, those with ≥2 exclusion criteria had a twofold (SHR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.38-3.39) increased risk of MB. Overall, about one-third of older patients would not be eligible for participation in guideline-defining VTE anticoagulation trials. The bleeding risk increases significantly with the number of exclusion criteria present. Thus, results from such trials may not be generalizable to older, multimorbid, and co-medicated patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a prevalent and serious condition. Its medical treatment requires anticoagulation, usually with either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is usually intravenous (IV) but can be subcutaneous as well. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of subcutaneous UFH versus intravenous UFH, subcutaneous LMWH or any other anticoagulant drug for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched 30 November 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 10). The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist also searched trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing subcutaneous UFH to control, such as subcutaneous LMWH, continuous intravenous UFH or other anticoagulant drugs in participants with acute venous thromboembolism.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS and LR) independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We used meta-analyses when we considered heterogeneity low. The primary outcomes were symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism), VTE-related mortality, adverse effects of treatment including major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. We calculated all outcomes using an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included one additional study in this update, bringing the total number of studies in the review to 16 randomised controlled trials, with a total of 3593 participants (1745 participants in the intervention group and 1848 participants in the control group). Eight trials used intravenous UFH as the control treatment, seven trials used LMWH, and one trial had three arms with both drugs as the controls. We did not identify trials comparing subcutaneous UFH with other anticoagulant drugs. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low due to lack of blinding in studies, which led to a risk of performance bias, and also for imprecision, as reflected by the wide confidence intervals.When comparing subcutaneous versus IV UFH, there was no difference in the incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE at three months (odds ratio (OR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 3.10; 8 studies; N = 965; low-quality evidence), symptomatic recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) at three months (OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 17.06; 1 study; N = 115; low-quality evidence), pulmonary embolism (PE) at three months (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.84; 9 studies; N = 1161; low-quality evidence), VTE-related mortality at three months (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.88; 9 studies; N = 1168; low-quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.97; 4 studies; N = 583; low-quality evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.51; 8 studies; N = 972; low-quality evidence). There were no episodes of asymptomatic VTE occurring within three months of the commencement of treatment.When comparing subcutaneous UFH versus LMWH, there was no difference in the incidence of recurrent VTE at three months (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.63; 5 studies; N = 2156; low-quality evidence), recurrent DVT at three months (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.63; 3 studies; N = 1566; low-quality evidence), PE (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.96; 5 studies, N = 1819; low-quality evidence), VTE-related mortality (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.67; 8 studies; N = 2469; low-quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.20; 5 studies; N = 2300; low-quality evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.07; 7 studies; N = 2272; low-quality evidence). There were no episodes of asymptomatic VTE occurring within three months of the commencement of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of a difference between subcutaneous versus intravenous UFH for preventing VTE recurrence, VTE-related or all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of the evidence was low. There is also no evidence of a difference between subcutaneous UFH and LMWH for preventing VTE recurrence, VTE-related or all-cause mortality or major bleeding.

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

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.

Outcome Analysis for Treatment in 100 Patients with Deep Vein Thrombosis

The treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis has been the subject of much research aimed at delineat ing the safest and most effective approach to diagnosis and treatment. Studies regarding long-term treatment have been limited by the narrow scope of laboratory and clinical analyses of many patients. In this study of 100 patients with a history of deep vein thrombosis, treated on an outpatient basis by a diverse group of clinicians, follow-up data were retrieved in order to determine the outcomes of various approaches to acute and long-term care. Among individuals followed for > 1 year, in only two patients (2%) was death attributable to a thrombotic event related to the etiology of the first episode of deep vein thrombosis. Most deceased patients succumbed to unrelated causes (11%). Among the 77 survivors, most (52%) received long-term antiplatelet therapy. All individ uals with a plasma coagulation defect, whether inherited or acquired, received anticoagulation with either heparin or warfarin. Since the long-term clinical outcome of most patients with deep vein thrombosis is dependent upon the underlying factor predisposing to thrombosis, the most important treatment decision is to select the therapy most likely to provide benefit without causing hemorrhage. An tiplatelet therapy, heparin, or warfarin may be chosen as appropriate for the individual patient.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in the Elderly

Venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) is a common problem in the elderly population. Indeed, increasing age is a significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism. The treatment of venous thromboembolism in the elderly population presents certain unique problems related to aging, such as decreasing body weight, increasing renal insufficiency and numerous comorbid conditions, which complicate therapy. Treatment of venous thromboembolism in the elderly has been complicated by an increased incidence of bleeding, particularly with the use of warfarin. The risk of bleeding may be substantially reduced by carefully adjusting the warfarin dose to maintain a therapeutic INR and for this purpose anticoagulant management clinics have been shown to be useful. The low-molecular-weight heparins have been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in several clinical trials, including many patients in the older age brackets. Furthermore, these agents can safely be used in the out-of-hospital setting. Long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparin is an alternative to the use of oral anticoagulant therapy, particularly in patients with cancer or recurrent venous thromboembolism.

Treatment of deep vein thrombosis in patients with pulmonary embolism: subgroup analysis on the efficacy and safety of certoparin vs. unfractionated heparin

The objective of this subgroup analysis of the pivotal studies NMH-TH-3 and NMH-TH-4 was to investigate the incidence of recurrent events of venous thromboembolism in patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with and without pulmonary embolism treated with subcutaneous fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin or intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH). To assess whether the efficacy of the two treatments is modified by the presence or absence of pulmonary embolism, a P value for subgroup by treatment interaction was calculated using logistic regression. The rate of recurrent venous thromboembolic events, defined as DVT, pulmonary embolism and death due to pulmonary embolism, was observed over 6 months. After 6 months of follow-up, 6.58% of patients with pulmonary embolism at baseline treated with certoparin (5/76) compared with 11.5% of patients with pulmonary embolism at baseline treated with UFH (7/61) had a venous thromboembolic event [relative risk (RR) = 0.57, confidence interval (CI) = 0.19-1.72]. In the group of patients without pulmonary embolism at baseline, 2.82% of patients treated with certoparin (23/816) and 4.63% of patients treated with UFH (37/800) had a venous thromboembolic event (RR = 0.61, CI = 0.37-1.02). The test for interaction between the groups of patients with and without pulmonary embolism was not significant (P = 0.886). The same was true for the safety results with regard to major bleedings and death. These data suggest that the recommendation for the use of certoparin in the treatment of isolated DVT can safely be extended to treatment of DVT in patients concomitantly suffering from pulmonary embolism.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodologic quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 9559 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH with UFH, two compared fondaparinux with heparin, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow-up with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodologic quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63), or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Update on pharmacologic therapy for pulmonary embolism

Warfarin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), and low-molecular-weight heparins are anticoagulants that have been used for treatment of pulmonary embolism. Currently approved drugs for treatment of venous thromboembolism include UFH, enoxaparin, dalteparin, fondaparinux, warfarin, and rivaroxaban. The advent of newer oral anticoagulants such as rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban has provided us with alternative therapeutic options for long-term anticoagulation. This article will give an overview of the various anticoagulant drugs, use in various clinical scenarios, data supporting their clinical use, and recommendations regarding duration of anticoagulant therapy.

Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This article addresses the treatment of VTE disease.

METHODS

We generated strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high-quality (Grade A), moderate-quality (Grade B), and low-quality (Grade C) evidence.

RESULTS

For acute DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend initial parenteral anticoagulant therapy (Grade 1B) or anticoagulation with rivaroxaban. We suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux over IV unfractionated heparin (Grade 2C) or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for PE with hypotension (Grade 2C). For proximal DVT or PE, we recommend treatment of 3 months over shorter periods (Grade 1B). For a first proximal DVT or PE that is provoked by surgery or by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we recommend 3 months of therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if provoked by a nonsurgical risk factor and low or moderate bleeding risk); that is unprovoked, we suggest extended therapy if bleeding risk is low or moderate (Grade 2B) and recommend 3 months of therapy if bleeding risk is high (Grade 1B); and that is associated with active cancer, we recommend extended therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if high bleeding risk) and suggest LMWH over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). We suggest vitamin K antagonists or LMWH over dabigatran or rivaroxaban (Grade 2B). We suggest compression stockings to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (Grade 2B). For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we suggest prophylactic-dose fondaparinux or LMWH over no anticoagulation (Grade 2B), and suggest fondaparinux over LMWH (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSION

Strong recommendations apply to most patients, whereas weak recommendations are sensitive to differences among patients, including their preferences.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

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

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 an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1999 and previously updated in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of LMWH compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the initial treatment of VTE.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Specialised Register and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library). Colleagues and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH with adjusted dose intravenous or subcutaneous UFH in people with VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included (n = 9587). Thrombotic complications occurred in 3.6% of participants treated with LMWH compared with 5.3% treated with UFH (odds ratio (OR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.85). Thrombus size was reduced in 53% of participants treated with LMWH and 45% treated with UFH (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81). Major haemorrhages occurred in 1.1% of participants treated with LMWH compared with 1.9% treated with UFH (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83). In 19 trials, 4.3% of participants treated with LMWH died compared with 5.8% of participants treated with UFH (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93).Nine studies (n = 4451) examined proximal thrombosis, 2192 participants were treated with LMWH and 2259 with UFH. Subgroup analysis showed statistically significant reductions favouring LMWH in thrombotic complications and major haemorrhage. By end of follow up, 80 (3.6%) participants treated with LMWH had thrombotic complications compared with 143 (6.3%) treated with UFH (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.75). Major haemorrhages occurred in 18 (1.0%) participants treated with LMWH compared with 37 (2.1%) treated with UFH (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.85). Nine studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality favouring LMWH. By the end of follow up, 3.3% (70/2094) of participants treated with LMWH had died and 5.3% (110/2063) treated with UFH.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fixed dose LMWH is more effective and safer than adjusted dose UFH for the initial treatment of VTE. Compared to UFH, LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of thrombotic complications, the occurrence of major haemorrhage during initial treatment and overall mortality at follow up.

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism is a prevalent condition with potentially dire consequences. Its medical treatment requires anticoagulation, which is usually achieved with either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is usually administered intravenously, but can be applied subcutaneously as well.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the effectiveness of subcutaneous UFH for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism compared with other treatment modalities.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 14 July 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3). We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (last searched February 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, in which treatment with subcutaneous UFH was compared to control, such as subcutaneous LMWH continuous intravenous UFH in patients with acute venous thromboembolism.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen randomised controlled trials were included with a total of 3054 participants (1475 patients in the intervention group and 1579 patients in the control group). The results for all the major outcomes were statistically non-significant. The odds ratio (OR) for recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) during three months follow up were 1.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 3.04) and 1.18. (95% CI 0.54 to 2.56), favouring the control arm. The odds ratio for developing PE during heparin treatment also favoured the control group (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.62). The ORs for major bleeding during heparin treatment and throughout three months follow up were non significant (1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, and 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32, respectively). Disease or treatment related deaths as well as total mortality during heparin treatment and at three months follow up did not differ between study groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism cannot be considered non-inferior to other treatment modalities in terms of recurrent DVT and PE at three months, but seems as safe and effective with regards to rates of major bleeding and death.

Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

This chapter about treatment for venous thromboembolic disease is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading, see "Grades of Recommendation" chapter). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for patients with objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend anticoagulant therapy with subcutaneous (SC) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), monitored IV, or SC unfractionated heparin (UFH), unmonitored weight-based SC UFH, or SC fondaparinux (all Grade 1A). For patients with a high clinical suspicion of DVT or PE, we recommend treatment with anticoagulants while awaiting the outcome of diagnostic tests (Grade 1C). For patients with confirmed PE, we recommend early evaluation of the risks to benefits of thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1C); for those with hemodynamic compromise, we recommend short-course thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1B); and for those with nonmassive PE, we recommend against the use of thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1B). In acute DVT or PE, we recommend initial treatment with LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux for at least 5 days rather than a shorter period (Grade 1C); and initiation of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) together with LMWH, UFH, or fondaparinux on the first treatment day, and discontinuation of these heparin preparations when the international normalized ratio (INR) is > or = 2.0 for at least 24 h (Grade 1A). For patients with DVT or PE secondary to a transient (reversible) risk factor, we recommend treatment with a VKA for 3 months over treatment for shorter periods (Grade 1A). For patients with unprovoked DVT or PE, we recommend treatment with a VKA for at least 3 months (Grade 1A), and that all patients are then evaluated for the risks to benefits of indefinite therapy (Grade 1C). We recommend indefinite anticoagulant therapy for patients with a first unprovoked proximal DVT or PE and a low risk of bleeding when this is consistent with the patient's preference (Grade 1A), and for most patients with a second unprovoked DVT (Grade 1A). We recommend that the dose of VKA be adjusted to maintain a target INR of 2.5 (INR range, 2.0 to 3.0) for all treatment durations (Grade 1A). We recommend at least 3 months of treatment with LMWH for patients with VTE and cancer (Grade 1A), followed by treatment with LMWH or VKA as long as the cancer is active (Grade 1C). For prevention of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) after proximal DVT, we recommend use of an elastic compression stocking (Grade 1A). For DVT of the upper extremity, we recommend similar treatment as for DVT of the leg (Grade 1C). Selected patients with lower-extremity (Grade 2B) and upper-extremity (Grade 2C). DVT may be considered for thrombus removal, generally using catheter-based thrombolytic techniques. For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we recommend treatment with prophylactic or intermediate doses of LMWH or intermediate doses of UFH for 4 weeks (Grade 1B).

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer receiving anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of anticoagulants (i.e. low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a January 2007 electronic search of : Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 26 RCTs including cancer patients as subgroups fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Cancer subgroup data was obtained for 15 of the 26 RCTs. Thirteen studies compared a LMWH to UFH while one study compared fondaparinux to UFH and one study compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant mortality reduction in patients treated with LMWH compared with those treated with UFH (Relative risk (RR) = 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the results after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH in reducing recurrent VTE was inconclusive (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). No data was available for bleeding outcomes, thrombocytopenia or postphlebitic syndrome. Compared to UFH, fondaparinux showed a non-statistically significant benefit for the outcome of death (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin showed a non-statistically significant mortality reduction with dalteparin (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the included trials, LMWH is likely to be superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. However, there is a need for more trials to better address this research question in cancer patients. Moreover, researchers should consider making the raw data of RCTs available for individual patient data meta-analyses.

No Difference in Risk for Thrombocytopenia During Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Venous Thrombosis With Either Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin or Unfractionated Heparin

BACKGROUND

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is a popular alternative to unfractionated heparin (UH) for the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in part based on the perception of a lower risk for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). To investigate the evidence supporting this perception, we performed a metaanalysis to compare the incidence of thrombocytopenia between LMWH and UH during PE and/or DVT treatment.

METHODS

Randomized trials comparing LMWH with UH for PE and/or DVT treatment were searched for in the MEDLINE database, bibliographies, and by correspondence with published investigators. Two reviewers independently selected high-quality studies and extracted data regarding heparin-associated thrombocytopenia (HAT), HIT confirmed by laboratory testing, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis (HITT). Outcome rates between LMWH and UH were compared using a binomial, generalized linear mixed model with a logit link and Gaussian random effects for study.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 5,275 patients met inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in HAT rates between the two treatments (LMWH, 1.2%; UH, 1.5%; p = 0.246). The incidence of documented HIT and HITT was too low to make an adequate comparison between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review disclosed no statistically significant difference in HAT between LMWH and UH and insufficient evidence to conclude that HIT and HITT rates were different between them. There was no evidence from randomized comparative trials to support the contention that patients receiving treatment for PE or DVT with UH are more prone to these complications than those receiving LMWH.

The use of unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparins in pregnancy

Currently unfractionated heparin (UH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are the agents of choice for anticoagulation in pregnancy. LMWH have been used safely without monitoring in nonpregnant patients; however, because of documented changes in the pharmacokinetics of these agents in pregnancy, monitoring with anti-Xa levels is necessary in pregnancy to maintain target therapeutic ranges. Patients requiring only prophylaxis during pregnancy with either UH or LMWH might benefit from occasional assessment of anti-Xa levels to confirm that target prophylactic ranges are being achieved. Although LMWH may cause less osteoporosis than UH at therapeutic doses, the incidence of heparin-induced osteoporosis seems to be low when only prophylactic dosing is used and therefore LMWH do not seem to offer this advantage at low doses. Experience with newer agents such as pentasaccharide inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors are limited in pregnancy and it remains to be seen what role these agents will play in women who require anticoagulation in pregnancy.

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low-molecular-weight heparin is the preferred choice for the initial treatment of acute, uncomplicated venous thromboembolism. In this context, unfractionated heparin is as safe and effective as low-molecular-weight heparin but requires strict laboratory monitoring. Twice-daily subcutaneous unfractionated heparin is more effective than, and as safe as, intravenous unfractionated heparin and may simplify patient treatment in or out of the hospital, being possibly cost saving, especially if it is used in weight-based, fixed, unadjusted doses. The present review focuses on the relative values of low-molecular-weight heparin and subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism.

RECENT FINDINGS

The major advantages of low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin seem to be ease of administration and cost savings associated with home therapy or early hospital discharge; however, many patients with venous thromboembolism are still admitted to the hospital for treatment, and unfractionated heparin is extensively used to this purpose, especially in the United States. Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, adjusted according to activated partial thromboplastin time algorithms, is as safe and effective as low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, allows for quick mobilization and early discharge of suitable patients, and represents a cost-effective strategy. Fixed-dose unfractionated heparin, like low-molecular-weight heparin, may be used for the home treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

SUMMARY

Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, targeted on activated partial thromboplastin time results or in fixed doses, may be used in or out of the hospital for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, being possibly cost effective; however, these findings need confirmation through appropriate, large-sample, randomized clinical trials.

Once-Daily Enoxaparin in The Outpatient Setting Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Hospital for the Treatment of Symptomatic Deep-Vein Thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Once- and twice-daily low-molecular-weight heparin administered in hospital have been shown to be effective and safe for treating deep-vein thrombosis. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of deep-vein thrombosis treatment using once-daily subcutaneous enoxaparin in the outpatient setting with intravenous unfractionated heparin in hospital.

METHODS

This randomized, parallel-group, open-label study was conducted in 18 centers in 4 countries. In total, 298 patients with symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis who were eligible for home treatment were randomized to treatment with enoxaparin in the outpatient setting (1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously once-daily) or unfractionated heparin in hospital (5000 IU bolus and 1250 IU/hour intravenous infusion) for > or =5 days. Clinical endpoints were assessed during a 6-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

Among all patients treated with enoxaparin, there was a trend towards fewer recurrent deep-vein thromboses (1.3% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.060) and pulmonary emboli (1.3% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.17) compared with patients treated with unfractionated heparin. When considering a post-hoc combined endpoint of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, significantly fewer events occurred in the enoxaparin group than in the unfractionated-heparin group (2.7% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.026). The incidences of bleeding events and adverse events in the enoxaparin and unfractionated-heparin groups were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily subcutaneous enoxaparin in the outpatient setting is at least as effective and as well tolerated as in-hospital intravenous unfractionated heparin for treatment of deep-vein thrombosis.

Quantitative assessment of thrombus burden predicts the outcome of treatment for venous thrombosis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Clot-burden change in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy, by predicting subsequent recurrent venous thromboembolism, may provide a clinically relevant surrogate endpoint of prognostic importance. The validity of this objective measure is yet to be established.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed to retrieve articles published up to December 2003. We identified 11 randomized trials reported from 1990 to 2003 that met our study identification and selection criteria. Anticoagulant therapy subsequently approved by regulatory affairs was assessed by clot-burden change and the validated outcome measure, long-term venous thromboembolism. Two additional randomized trials, partly meeting the inclusion criteria, were included in the sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Individual studies suggested a predictive relationship between clot-burden change and likelihood of recurrent venous thromboembolism irrespective of the particular anticoagulant. The summary treatment effects strongly favored the therapy under evaluation and were in harmony for improved clot-burden (relative risk 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88; P <0.001) and for recurrent venous thromboembolism (relative risk 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76; P <0.001). The aggregate data show a striking predictive correlation for clot-burden change and subsequent recurrent venous thromboembolism using meta-regression analysis; (correlation = 0.81, P = 0.005) validating quantitative clot-burden assessment.

CONCLUSION

Clot-burden change predicts long-term outcome, providing clinically relevant, patient-specific prognostic findings that may guide duration of anticoagulant therapy as well as provide a valid surrogate endpoint for clinical trials of innovative antithrombotic therapy, allowing more efficient trials exposing far fewer patients to the hazards of ineffective therapy than is required for outcome studies. Noninvasive assessment (duplex ultrasonography) of clot-burden change is currently being deployed for use in clinical trials.

Low molecular weight heparins: a developmental perspective

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are now universally accepted as drugs of choice for post-surgical prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Currently these agents are also being developed for the treatment of thrombosis and various cardiovascular indications. Due to manufacturing differences, each of the LMWHs exhibits a distinct pharmacological and biochemical profile. The specific activity of these agents in the anticoagulant assays ranges from 35 - 45 anti-IIa U/mg, whereas the specific activity in terms of anti-Xa units is designated as 80 - 145 anti-Xa U/mg. These LMWHs are capable of producing product-specific dose- and time-dependent antithrombotic effects in animal models of thrombosis. While the ex vivo effects are initially present at doses that are antithrombotic, these agents have been found to produce sustained antithrombotic effects without any detectable ex vivo anticoagulant actions. In experimental animal models and in various clinical trials, these agents have also been found to release tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI) after both iv. and sc. administration. Repeated administration of LMWHs produces progressively stronger antithrombotic effects; however, the haemorrhagic responses vary and are largely dependent on the product used. The release of TFPI following iv. and sc. administration in a primate model also demonstrates product individuality and the relevance of this inhibitor to the actions of LMWHs. Furthermore, repeated administration, mimicking the post-surgical prophylaxis of DVT, leads to product-based augmentation of the antithrombotic or haemorrhagic effects. Antithrombotic and haemorrhagic studies are discussed, comparing the pharmacological profile of some of the available LMWHs. Product individuality, in terms of relative potency in different assays and the failure of standardisation protocols to provide any guidelines for product substitution and prediction of the clinical effects, is also addressed.

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

BACKGROUND

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been shown to be effective and safe in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), and may also be effective for the initial treatment of VTE.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of LMWH compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the initial treatment of VTE.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified from the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL and LILACS. Colleagues and pharmaceutical companies were contacted for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH with adjusted dose intravenous or subcutaneous UFH in people with VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers assessed trials for inclusion and quality, and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included (n = 8867). Thrombotic complications occurred in 151/4181 (3.6%) participants treated with LMWH, compared with 211/3941 (5.4%) participants treated with UFH (odds ratio (OR) 0.68; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.55 to 0.84, 18 trials). Thrombus size was reduced in 53% of participants treated with LMWH and 45% treated with UFH (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81, 12 trials). Major haemorrhages occurred in 41/3500 (1.2%) participants treated with LMWH, compared with 73/3624 (2.0%) participants treated with UFH (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83, 19 trials). In eighteen trials, 187/4193 (4.5%) participants treated with LMWH died, compared with 233/3861 (6.0%) participants treated with UFH (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92). Nine studies (n = 4451) examined proximal thrombosis; 2192 participants treated with LMWH and 2259 with UFH. Subgroup analysis showed statistically significant reductions favouring LMWH in thrombotic complications and major haemorrhage. By the end of follow up, 80 (3.6%) participants treated with LMWH had thrombotic complications, compared with 143 (6.3%) treated with UFH (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.75). Major haemorrhage occurred in 18 (1.0%) participants treated with LMWH, compared with 37 (2.1%) treated with UFH (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.85). Nine studies (n = 4157) showed a statistically significant reduction favouring LMWH with respect to mortality. By the end of follow up, 3.3% (70/2094) of participants treated with LMWH had died, compared with 5.3% (110/2063) of participants treated with UFH (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is more effective than UFH for the initial treatment of VTE. LMWH significantly reduces the occurrence of major haemorrhage during initial treatment and overall mortality at follow up.

Bleeding profiles of anticoagulants, including the novel oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran: definitions, incidence and management

Ximelagatran is a novel oral direct thrombin inhibitor (oral DTI) that is currently in advanced clinical development for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in a wide range of patient populations and indications. The clinical development of novel anticoagulant therapies requires that treatments be assessed according to both their clinical benefit (reduction of risk of thromboembolic events) and safety profile (primarily bleeding). Definition and assessment of bleeding severity is thus an important factor in clinical trial design. Lack of consistency in bleeding definitions used in different clinical trial programmes makes comparison of bleeding event data difficult. Standard bleeding definitions would be required to make fair comparisons between clinical trials possible. The definitions of bleeding events used in clinical trials of ximelagatran are broadly consistent with those used in many other major trials. Results of phase II and III trials comparing ximelagatran with currently available anticoagulant therapies demonstrate that ximelagatran can be used with fixed dosing with no coagulation monitoring, dose titration, or dose adjustment, without compromising efficacy or safety. The incidences of major bleeding events in clinical trials of ximelagatran have been low and similar to those with other anticoagulant drugs. Adequate treatment in case of emergency situations such as serious bleeding should include cessation of treatment and maintenance of adequate diuresis.

Hemorrhagic Complications of Anticoagulant Treatment

This chapter about hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant treatment is part of the seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Bleeding is the major complication of anticoagulant therapy. The criteria for defining the severity of bleeding varies considerably between studies, accounting in part for the variation in the rates of bleeding reported. The major determinants of vitamin K antagonist-induced bleeding are the intensity of the anticoagulant effect, underlying patient characteristics, and the length of therapy. There is good evidence that vitamin K antagonist therapy, targeted international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.0), is associated with a lower risk of bleeding than therapy targeted at an INR > 3.0. The risk of bleeding associated with IV unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) is < 3% in recent trials. This bleeding risk may increase with increasing heparin dosages and age (> 70 years). Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is associated with less major bleeding compared with UFH in acute VTE. UFH and LMWH are not associated with an increase in major bleeding in ischemic coronary syndromes, but are associated with an increase in major bleeding in ischemic stroke. Information on bleeding associated with the newer generation of antithrombotic agents has begun to emerge. In terms of treatment decision making for anticoagulant therapy, bleeding risk cannot be considered alone, ie, the potential decrease in thromboembolism must be balanced against the potential increased bleeding risk.

Correlation between thrombus regression and recurrent venous thromboembolism. Examining venographic and clinical effects of low-molecular-weight heparins: a meta-analysis

We analyzed the correlation between thrombus regression on control venography performed after discontinuation of heparin therapy and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) detected during clinical follow-up in randomized trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Data were abstracted from MEDLINE, conference abstracts and reference lists of previous reviews. Randomized, controlled trials comparing LMWH and UFH for the treatment of DVT using a combined venographic and clinical assessment and with at least 2 months of follow-up were selected. The proportions of patients with thrombus regression on control venography performed soon after discontinuation of heparin therapy and recurrent VTE at 2-6 months were independently collected by two researchers. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a strong inverse correlation between thrombus regression and recurrent VTE (r =- 0.70; P =0.008). The venographic effect varied between the different LMWHs (P = 0.013). A very strong correlation was found when the results were pooled by the type of LMWH used (r = - 0.84; P=0.037). No influence of the dose interval used on the venographic effect (P=0.156) or on recurrent VTE (P=0.218) was shown. The lack of thrombus regression in venography, performed soon after heparin discontinuation, was correlated with clinical recurrence. Non-invasive imaging techniques should be relevant to identify non-responders and to assess the optimal duration of initial heparin treatment in daily clinical practice.

Outpatient treatment of acute venous thromboembolic disease

Once- or twice-daily subcutaneous dosing of LMWHs without laboratory monitoring has facilitated outpatient VTE therapy. Clinical trials have demonstrated at least equivalent efficacy and safety and potential cost savings of outpatient therapy for uncomplicated proximal DVT with LMWH when compared with inpatient therapy. Explicit criteria exist for outpatient DVT therapy. Home therapy for PE requires further evaluation before it can be recommended outside of a trial or other supervised setting.

Thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis in medical, surgical, trauma, and obstetric/gynecologic patients

The International Consensus and the ACCP Sixth Consensus had a great impact on the clinical acceptance of LMWHs. These recommendations have been instrumental in initiating further clinical trial to answer key questions regarding thromboprophylaxis and in setting a new standard for patient care. Also, the key to cost containment in management of DVT/PE is to (1) define the etiology (blood coagulation protein or platelet defect), institute appropriate long-term therapy as indicated, and assess appropriate family members as indicated if a hereditary defect is found and (2) use LMWH as inpatient management. saving a minimum of 210,000.00 dollars per 1000 patients simply from cost savings of recurrence, saving 17 lives per 1000 patients, and saving exorbitant costs of care for patients with recurrence and development of chronic venous insufficiency. The use of outpatient LMWH will save 4,900,000.00 dollars per 1000 patients if applied to the 70% of patients with DVT who fit the criteria of no comorbid condition requiring hospitalization and who arrive early enough to allow a diagnosis to be sent home or hospitalized for 24 hours or less. The simple defining of defects leading to unexplained thrombosis will add another 3,000,000.00 dollars in savings per 1000 patients with DVT and approximately 350,000.00 dollars per 100 patients with thrombotic stroke. In those with transient ischemic attacks, defining the defect and instituting appropriate antithrombotic therapy, thereby potentially saving approximately 30% from developing a thrombotic stroke, amounts to approximately 350,500.00 dollars (= 30% of 1,168,500.00 dollars) in savings per 100 patients.

Intimatan prevents arterial and venous thrombosis in a canine model of deep vessel wall injury

Resistance of fibrin-bound thrombin to inactivation by the heparin/antithrombin III complex is considered a limitation in the use of heparin as an antithrombotic agent. Intimatan (dermatan 4,6-di-O-sulfate) is a heparin cofactor II agonist that inhibits both free and bound forms of thrombin. The present study examines the hypothesis that Intimatan prevents thrombotic occlusion in response to vascular wall injury in a canine model of carotid artery/jugular vein thrombosis. The left carotid artery and right jugular vein served as vehicle-treated control vessels, whereas the right carotid artery and left jugular vein were subjected to electrolytic injury after administration of Intimatan (9 mg/kg bolus + 300 microg/kg/min infusion, i.v.) or dalteparin (Fragmin) (400 IU/kg, s.c.). Intimatan significantly increased time to carotid artery (226.0 +/- 14.0 min) and jugular vein (240.0 +/- 0.0 min) thrombosis, compared with control vessels (carotid artery, 87.1 +/- 7.9 min; jugular vein, 60.6 +/- 7.4 min). Vessel patency was maintained in eight of eight jugular veins and seven of eight carotid arteries during treatment with Intimatan. Dalteparin significantly increased time to carotid artery thrombosis (122.1 +/- 17.5 min) compared with control (64.3 +/- 8.2 min), but did not change the time to thrombosis in the jugular vein. Only one carotid artery remained patent at the end of the dalteparin protocol. The two drugs produced minimal increases in bleeding times, and Intimatan increased the activated partial thromboplastin time above that observed with dalteparin. The results demonstrate that Intimatan is effective in preventing occlusive arterial and venous thrombosis in an experimental model of deep vascular wall injury.

Cost effectiveness of tinzaparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate economic and health implications of tinzaparin sodium, a once a day low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from a US healthcare payer perspective.

STUDY DESIGN

An economic model, composed of two submodules, was created: A short-term module based on clinical trial data covering the first 3 months and a long-term module that projects trial results based on published data for up to 50 years.

METHODS

Clinical trial results were combined with data from long-term follow-up studies of DVT in a model that estimates the health and economic consequences of treatment. Both short- and long-term costs with tinzaparin sodium were compared with UFH, as were health outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Patients treated with tinzaparin sodium are estimated to live a mean of 0.9 years longer on average (0.6 discounted), resulting in an increase of 0.8 QALYs (0.5 discounted). At the same time, lifetime savings are US dollars 621 per patient (1999 values), even when all patients receiving tinzapirin sodium are treated as inpatients. Early discharge of patients receiving tinzaparin sodium, or outpatient treatment, would save between US dollars 3000 and US dollars 5000 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Tinzaparin sodium leads to better health outcomes and substantial economic savings compared with UFH treatment when all management costs are considered.

Treating venous thromboembolism: enoxaparin

This article reviews the developments that have occurred in the treatment of venous thromboembolism during the last decade, with emphasis on the establishment of low molecular weight heparin as a therapeutic agent of proven efficacy and examines the evidence that supports the movement from inpatient to outpatient hospital management of venous thromboembolism.

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

BACKGROUND

Low-molecular-weight heparins are frequently used to treat venous thromboembolism, but optimal dosing regimens and clinical outcomes need further definition.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label study with blinded adjudication of end points, we randomly assigned patients with acute deep-vein thrombosis to one of three treatment regimens: intravenous administration of unfractionated heparin; subcutaneous administration of a low-molecular-weight heparin, reviparin, twice a day for one week; or subcutaneous administration of reviparin once a day for four weeks. The primary end point was evidence of regression of the thrombus on venography on day 21; secondary end points were recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding within 90 days after enrollment, and death.

RESULTS

Of the patients receiving unfractionated heparin, 40.2 percent (129 of 321) had thrombus regression, as compared with 53.4 percent (175 of 328) of patients receiving reviparin twice daily and 53.5 percent (167 of 312) of the patients receiving reviparin once daily. With regard to thrombus regression, reviparin administered twice daily was significantly more effective than unfractionated heparin (relative likelihood of thrombus regression, 1.28; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.52), as was reviparin administered once daily (relative likelihood, 1.29; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.53). Mortality and the frequency of episodes of major bleeding were similar in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In acute deep-vein thrombosis, reviparin regimens are more effective than unfractionated heparin in reducing the size of the thrombus. Reviparin is also more effective than unfractionated heparin for the prevention of recurrent thromboembolism and equally safe.

Hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant treatment

Bleeding is the major complication of anticoagulant therapy. The criteria for defining the severity of bleeding varied considerably between studies, accounting in part for the variation in the rates of bleeding reported. Since the last review, there have been several meta-analyses published on the rates of major bleeding in trials of anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease. The major determinants of oral anticoagulant-induced bleeding are the intensity of the anticoagulant effect, underlying patient characteristics, and the length of therapy. There is good evidence that low-intensity oral anticoagulant therapy (targeted INR of 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) is associated with a lower risk of bleeding than therapy targeted at a higher intensity. Lower-intensity regimens (INR < 2.0) are associated with an even smaller increase in major bleeding. In terms of treatment decision making for anticoagulant therapy, bleeding risk cannot be considered alone, ie, the potential decrease in thromboembolism must be balanced against the potential increased bleeding risk. The risk of bleeding associated with IV heparin in patients with acute venous thromboembolism is < 3% in recent trials. There is some evidence to suggest that this bleeding risk increases with the heparin dosage and age (> 70 years). LMW heparin is not associated with increased major bleeding compared with standard heparin in acute venous thromboembolism. Standard heparin and LMW heparin are not associated with an increase in major bleeding in ischemic coronary syndromes, but are associated with an increase in major bleeding in ischemic stroke.

Low molecular weight heparin versus oral anticoagulants in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) could be equal or more effective than conventional oral anticoagulants (OAs) in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

METHODS

One hundred fifty-eight patients with symptomatic DVT of the lower limbs confirmed by means of duplex ultrasound scan were randomized to receive 3 to 6 months' treatment with nadroparine calcium or acenocoumarol. Quantitative and qualitative duplex scan scoring systems were used to study the evolution of thrombosis in both groups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

During the 12-month surveillance period, two (2.5%) of the 81 patients who received LMWH and seven (9%) of the 77 patients who received OAs had recurrence of venous thrombosis (not significant). In the LMWH group no cases of major bleeding were found, and four cases (5.2%) occurred in the OA group (not significant). The mortality rate was nine (11.1%) in the LMWH group and 7.8% in the OA group (not significant). The quantitative mean duplex scan score decreased in both groups during the follow-up and had statistical significance after long-term LMWH treatment on iliofemoral DVT (1, 3, 6, and 12 months), femoropopliteal DVT (1-3 months), and infrapopliteal DVT (first month). Duplex scan evaluation showed that the rate of venous recanalization significantly increased in the common femoral vein at 6 and at 12 months and during each point of follow-up in the superficial and popliteal veins in the LMWH group. Reflux was significantly less frequent in communicating veins after LMWH treatment (17.9% vs 32.2% in the OA group). The reflux rates in the superficial (22.4% in the LMWH group, 30.6% in OA group) and deep (13.4% vs 17.7%) venous system showed no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The unmonitored subcutaneous administration of nadroparine in fixed daily doses was more effective than oral acenocoumarol with laboratory control adjustment in achieving recanalization of leg thrombi. With nadroparine, there was less late valvular communicating vein insufficiency, and it was at least as efficacious and safe as oral anticoagulants after long-term administration. These results suggest that LMWHs may therefore represent a real therapeutic advance in the long-term management of DVT.

Anti-thrombotic efficacies of enoxaparin, dalteparin, and unfractionated heparin in venous thrombo-embolism

BACKGROUND

Few data exist by which the anti-thrombotic efficacy of different anticoagulants may be compared. We used a radiolabeled antibody specific for polymerizing fibrin to compare the in vivo anti-thrombotic potencies of different systemic anticoagulants (enoxaparin, dalteparin, and unfractionated heparin).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Deep venous thrombi (DVTs) were induced in dogs' femoral veins. The dogs were then treated with one of the following subcutaneous regimens: enoxaparin 100 units/kg (1.0 mg/kg) every 12 hours (n=4), dalteparin 200 units/kg every 24 hours (n=4), or unfractionated heparin 240 units/kg every 8 hours with dose adjustment via aPTT (n=3). 111Indium-labeled anti-fibrin antibodies, specific for propagating thrombi, were given intravenously and nuclear scans of the legs were taken over the following 24 hours. Thrombus propagation was estimated by the ratio of gamma emissions from the legs containing DVTs divided by the emissions from the contralateral "control" legs. DVTs accumulated labeled anti-fibrin antibodies at the same rates in both the enoxaparin group and the dalteparin group (gamma emissions 171+/-6% and 168+/-36% of control by 24 hours, respectively). DVTs in the adjusted dose unfractionated heparin group tended to accumulate antibodies at a slower rate (129+/-19% of control by 24 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Enoxaparin and dalteparin inhibited propagation of pre-formed thrombi to the same degree. Subcutaneous unfractionated heparin, adjusted every 8 hours by aPTT, tended to suppress ongoing thrombosis more than either LMWH.

For the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism: are all low-molecular-weight heparin compounds the same?

Low-molecular-weight heparin compounds have been used in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism for approximately 15 years. Ever since their introduction, there has been discussion about whether low-molecular-weight heparin compounds differ in their efficacy and safety. The best answer would be provided by direct comparison of different low-molecular-weight heparin preparations; however, these trials have not been conducted. Classical meta-analysis has its limitations for such a comparison since only a very small number of trials with the respective low-molecular-weight heparin compounds are available. The objective of the present analysis has been the use of meta-regression to compare the efficacy and safety of different low-molecular-weight heparin compounds in the initial treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. We used computerized literature searches to identify studies that compared dose-adjusted unfractionated heparin treatment with fixed dose subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin treatment in patients with established venous thromboembolism. The individual odds ratios of the studies were plotted against the absolute percentage of the major outcomes in the unfractionated heparin control group. Linear regression was used to find differences between different low-molecular-weight heparin compounds. There appears to be some variation in efficacy and safety among the currently available low-molecular-weight heparin preparations.

Proficient and cost-effective approaches for the prevention and treatment of venous thrombosis and thromboembolism

Thrombosis is clearly a common cause of death in the US. It is obviously of major importance to define the aetiology of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) as (i) many of these events are preventable if appropriate therapy, dependent upon the risk factors known is utilised; (ii) appropriate antithrombotic therapy will decrease risks of recurrence; (iii) the type of defect(s) and risk(s) will determine length of time the patient should remain on therapy for secondary prevention and (iv) if the defect is hereditary appropriate family members can be assessed. Aside from mortality, significant additional morbidity occurs from DVT including, but not limited to, stasis ulcers and other sequelae of post-phlebitic syndrome. Numerous studies have provided evidence that medical patients and patients undergoing surgery or trauma are at significant risk for developing DVT, including pulmonary embolism (PE). Thus, an important task for the clinician is to prevent DVT and its complications. It is important to define risk groups where prophylaxis must be considered. The attitudes and beliefs towards prophylaxis show great regional variations. This is true for the definition of risk groups, the proportion of patients receiving prophylaxis and prophylactic modalities used. For this reason, various 'consensus conference' groups have attempted to alleviate these problems; the primary mission of consensus guidelines is to provide optimal direction to the clinician in the setting of clinical practice. If the practice guidelines generated are successful they will assist clinicians in decision-making for their patients, and they will also provide protection against unjustified malpractice actions. Therapy may be complex, as clinical studies continue to identify more effective treatments. This review includes currently accepted approaches to the treatment of DVT. The clinical course of DVT is highly dynamic. When the response to therapy is not as expected, more than one cause of DVT may be present in a patient. Treatment must address the primary coagulopathy as well as any precipitating factors. The risk of pharmacological intervention must be balanced against potential benefit. If the incidence of DVT in a given disorder is low and if the mortality rate is similarly low, therapy with an agent known to be associated with a high risk for complications, such as warfarin, would not be indicated. If DVT is seen primarily after surgery or in other high-risk situations, therapy might be limited to a fixed time period. However, if the ongoing risk of DVT remains high or if a history of recurrent DVT dictates, lifelong therapy might be indicated. The recommendations presented are based upon published controlled trials; however, indications for therapy and therapeutic agents of choice will continually evolve. By applying the principles outlined in this review, substantial cost savings, reduction in morbidity and reductions in mortality should occur.