PURPOSE: To obtain reliable estimates of the relative efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. METHODS: A literature search of randomized trials evaluating LMWH and UFH for the period from 1980 to 1994 was conducted to obtain data for a meta-analysis. Studies were classified as level 1 if they were double-blind or if there was blinded assessment of outcome measures, and level 2 if they did not provide assurance of blinded outcome assessment. RESULTS: In level 1 studies, the relative risk (RR) of recurrent venous thromboembolism during the first 15 days and over the entire period of anticoagulant therapy was 0.24 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.06 to 0.80, P = 0.02) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.80, P = 0.006), respectively, in favor of LMWH treatment. The RR for major bleeding was 0.42 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.9, P = 0.01), in favor of LMWH. In level 2 studies, no significant differences in the rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding were observed. Pooling level 1 and level 2 studies, the RR for overall mortality and mortality in cancer patients was 0.51 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.9, P = 0.01) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.8, P = 0.01), respectively, in favor of LMWH. CONCLUSIONS: LMWH are likely to be more effective than UFH in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism, to produce less major bleeding, and to be associated with a lower mortality rate, particularly in the subgroup of patients with cancer.

Low-molecular-weight heparins and unfractionated heparin in the treatment of patients with acute venous thromboembolism: Results of a meta-analysis

Cosmi B.;
1996

Abstract

PURPOSE: To obtain reliable estimates of the relative efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. METHODS: A literature search of randomized trials evaluating LMWH and UFH for the period from 1980 to 1994 was conducted to obtain data for a meta-analysis. Studies were classified as level 1 if they were double-blind or if there was blinded assessment of outcome measures, and level 2 if they did not provide assurance of blinded outcome assessment. RESULTS: In level 1 studies, the relative risk (RR) of recurrent venous thromboembolism during the first 15 days and over the entire period of anticoagulant therapy was 0.24 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.06 to 0.80, P = 0.02) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.80, P = 0.006), respectively, in favor of LMWH treatment. The RR for major bleeding was 0.42 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.9, P = 0.01), in favor of LMWH. In level 2 studies, no significant differences in the rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding were observed. Pooling level 1 and level 2 studies, the RR for overall mortality and mortality in cancer patients was 0.51 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.9, P = 0.01) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.8, P = 0.01), respectively, in favor of LMWH. CONCLUSIONS: LMWH are likely to be more effective than UFH in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism, to produce less major bleeding, and to be associated with a lower mortality rate, particularly in the subgroup of patients with cancer.
Siragusa S.; Cosmi B.; Piovella F.; Hirsh J.; Ginsberg J.S.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/807155
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 438
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 363
social impact