Decreased prevalence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with low-molecular-weight heparin and related drugs

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) Type II represents a disease spectrum associated with a high risk of thrombosis leading to limb loss and death. The pathophysiology of HIT is based on the development of antibodies to the heparin-platelet factor 4 (PF4) complex. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is heterogeneous in molecular chain length and degree of sulfation accounting in part, for, the heterogeneity of HIT antibodies. Because of its smaller size, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) does not interact with PF4 and platelets as efficiently as does UFH. This translates into a lower risk of immune sensitization with LMWH than with UFH treatment. LMWH is less likely than UFH to cause antibody generation and thus patients do not develop clinical HIT at the same frequency with LMWH as with UFH treatment. The antibodies generated by LMWH treatment are more often immunoglobulin A (IgA) and IgM as opposed to IgG antibodies, which are associated with symptomatic clinical HIT generated by exposure to UFH. However, platelet activation/aggregation can occur from LMWHs in the presence of most pre-existing HIT antibodies that had been generated from UFH exposure, although the response is less than that caused by UFH plus HIT antibody. With the expanded use of LMWH, the frequency of clinical HIT may naturally decline, given that LMWHs are less likely to generate HIT antibody.     

Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for treatment of pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) appears to be safe and effective for treating pulmonary embolism (PE), but its cost-effectiveness has not been assessed. METHODS: We built a Markov state-transition model to evaluate the medical and economic outcomes of a 6-day course with fixed-dose LMWH or adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) in a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old patients with acute submassive PE. Probabilities for clinical outcomes were obtained from a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Cost estimates were derived from Medicare reimbursement data and other sources. The base-case analysis used an inpatient setting, whereas secondary analyses examined early discharge and outpatient treatment with LMWH. Using a societal perspective, strategies were compared based on lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Inpatient treatment costs were higher for LMWH treatment than for UFH (dollar 13,001 vs dollar 12,780), but LMWH yielded a greater number of QALYs than did UFH (7.677 QALYs vs 7.493 QALYs). The incremental costs of dollar 221 and the corresponding incremental effectiveness of 0.184 QALYs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dollar 1,209/QALY. Our results were highly robust in sensitivity analyses. LMWH became cost-saving if the daily pharmacy costs for LMWH were < dollar 51, if > or = 8% of patients were eligible for early discharge, or if > or = 5% of patients could be treated entirely as outpatients. CONCLUSION: For inpatient treatment of PE, the use of LMWH is cost-effective compared to UFH. Early discharge or outpatient treatment in suitable patients with PE would lead to substantial cost savings.     

Deep Venous Thrombosis: Early Discharge Strategies and Outpatient Management

Conventional management of acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) consists of initiating continuous infusion intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) for 5 days in the hospital as well as warfarin. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) appear to confer similar protection against recurrent DVT compared with UFH but exhibit prolonged bioavailability, increased ease of dosing, and fewer side effects. The advent of LMWH has resulted in increased numbers of patients undergoing initial management of acute DVT with only several days of hospitalization. While 3-month follow-up studies with LMWH demonstrate similar efficacy and safety to UFH, longer term experience with these new agents is necessary to determine their optimal use and safety. We suggest a system for triage in the initial management of DVT patients for: (1) complete outpatient management with LMWH, or (2) short-term hospitalization for initiation of LMWH, or (3) 5-day hospitalization for treatment with UFH. A review of DVT management with LMWH and algorithms for each of these pathways are provided.     

Gender imbalance and risk factor interactions in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by antibodies against a "self" protein-platelet factor 4-bound to heparin. We observed an overrepresentation of the female gender in 290 patients who developed HIT after cardiac or orthopedic surgery compared with the representation found in national databases (study 1). Therefore, we investigated gender imbalance in HIT by logistic regression analysis of a randomized controlled trial of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (study 2), and we analyzed individual patient data from 7 prospective studies comparing HIT frequency between UFH and LMWH, evaluating effects of gender, heparin (UFH vs LMWH), and patient type (surgical vs medical) (study 3). All 3 studies showed female overrepresentation, which for study 3 was a common odds ratio (OR) of 2.37 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.37-4.09; P = .0015). Study 3 also showed an interaction between gender, heparin, and patient type. Although UFH was more likely than LMWH to cause HIT (P < .0001), this effect was predominantly seen in women compared with men (common OR, 9.22 vs 1.83; P = .020) and in surgical patients compared with medical patients (common OR, 13.93 vs 1.75; P = .005). We conclude that females are at greater risk for HIT and that using LMWH to prevent HIT may have greatest absolute benefit in females undergoing surgical thromboprophylaxis.     

Deep Venous Thrombosis: Early Discharge Strategies and Outpatient Management

Conventional management of acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) consists of initiating continuous infusion intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) for 5 days in the hospital as well as warfarin. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) appear to confer similar protection against recurrent DVT compared with UFH but exhibit prolonged bioavailability; increased ease of dosing, and fewer side effects. The advent of LMWH has resulted in increased numbers of patients undergoing initial management of acute DVT with only several days of hospitalization. While 3-month follow-up studies with LMWH demonstrate similar efficacy and safety to UFH, longer term experience with these new agents is necessary to determine their optimal use and safety. We suggest a system for triage in the initial management of DVT patients for: (1) complete outpatient management with LMWH, or (2) short-term hospitalization for initiation of LMWH, or (3) 5-day hospitalization for treatment with UFH. A review of DVT management with LMWH and algorithms for each of these pathways are provided.     

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Should Replace Unfractionated Heparin in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes

Acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction) are caused by the rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque, platelet activation, and fibrin deposition, resulting in thrombosis. Aspirin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) have traditionally been the treatment of choice in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) offer potential advantages over UFH and have been shown to be equally effective as UFH for the treatment and prevention of many venous thromboembolic processes. Results of prospective, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the role of LMWH in the management of patients with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction have indicated improved outcomes when compared with UFH. In addition, despite the increased acquisition cost of LMWH compared with UFH, an overall cost saving was associated with LMWH use, primarily as a result of a reduction in cardiovascular events. The available evidence supports improved clinical outcomes, favorable safety profile, and cost savings associated with LMWH use in the management of unstable angina and non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Thus, LMWH should replace UFH as the antithrombotic agent of first choice in the management of acute coronary syndromes.     

Low molecular weight heparins and coronary artery disease

Coronary artery disease encompasses a wide spectrum of conditions including silent ischemia, exertional angina, unstable angina, and myocardial infarction. Acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina and myocardial infarction) are caused by the rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque, platelet activation, and fibrin deposition resulting in thrombosis. Aspirin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) have traditionally been the treatment of choice in patients with acute coronary syndromes; however, low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) offer potential advantages over UFH. Available evidence indicates that LMWH is superior to UFH in reducing ischemic events or death in the acute phase of unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Long-term therapy with lower doses of LMWH may not offer any advantage to aspirin in the prevention of coronary events or death. Major bleeding complications are similar for LMWH and UFH although minor bleeding complications are more common with LMWH, primarily due to injection-site hematomas. Finally, use of LMWH appears to be costeffective compared with UFH. The available evidence supports improved clinical outcomes, favorable safety profile, and cost savings associated with LMWH use in the management of unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction and should be favored over UFH.     

Orally active heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin

The heparins, (unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH)) given by subcutaneous or intravenous injection have been used extensively in the prevention and treatment of both venous and arterial thromboembolic disorders. The increasing use of the heparins, LMWHs in particular, in the out of hospital setting has stimulated interest in the development of orally absorbable antithrombotic agents that require little or no monitoring, and this includes the heparins. UFH or LMWH delivered orally has been shown to have an antithrombotic effect in animal thrombosis models although there is little change in plasma coagulation tests. The addition of a simple organic chemical N -(8-(2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino)caprylate (SNAC) to UFH markedly enhances its absorption. A phase II study in patients undergoing total hip replacement indicated that SNAC heparin in two different doses was as effective and safe as UFH given subcutaneously. A phase III clinical trial comparing two doses of SNAC heparin given orally with LMWH by subcutaneous injection for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip replacement is currently underway.     

The incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in medical patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin: a prospective cohort study

In contrast with extensive documentation in patients treated with unfractionated heparin (UFH), the incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in medical patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is less well defined. In a prospective cohort study, the platelet count was monitored in 1754 consecutive patients referred to 17 medical centers and treated with LMWH for prophylaxis or treatment of thromboembolic disorders. The diagnosis of HIT was accepted in case of a platelet drop of at least 50%, the absence of obvious explanations for thrombocytopenia, and the demonstration of heparin-dependent IgG antibodies. HIT developed in 14 patients (0.80%; 95% CI, 0.43%-1.34%), in all of them within the first 2 weeks, and was more frequent in patients who had (1.7%) than in those who had not (0.3%) been exposed to UFH or LMWH (OR = 4.9; 95% CI, 1.5-15.7). The prevalence of thromboembolic complications in HIT patients (4 of 14; 28.6%) was remarkably higher than that (41 of 1740; 2.4%) observed in the remaining patients (OR = 16.6; 95% CI, 5.0-55.0). Immune thrombocytopenia and related thromboembolism may complicate the clinical course of medical patients treated with LMWH with a frequency that is not different from that observed with the use of UFH. The previous administration of heparin increases the rate of HIT.     

Prophylaxis and treatment of deep-vein thrombosis

In 1980, unfractionated heparin (UFH) was the established agent for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease in patients undergoing general surgery. VTE prophylaxis was the first indication in which low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) were tested. Approximately 40 trials have demonstrated that LMWHs are at least as effective and safe as UFH. LMWHs exhibit a number of advantages over UFH, including ease of administration, convenient once-daily dosing, and facilitation of outpatient management. The ideal time of administration and the dose of the initial one or two injections of LMWH remain unresolved issues. LMWHs are used with increasing frequency in the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), having been studied in comparison to UFH in 16 major clinical trials. LMWHs are at least as effective as UFH in the prevention of VTE, but higher doses than those used for prophylaxis are required. There is still an ongoing debate about whether the daily dose should be administered in one or two subcutaneous injections. In some recent studies, symptomatic new DVTs or pulmonary emboli (PE) were the primary end points, which had to be verified by objective methods, but such end points may be not be sensitive enough to detect major differences in the efficacy of different LMWHs.     

Anti-platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies in orthopedic surgery patients receiving antithrombotic prophylaxis with fondaparinux or enoxaparin

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by platelet-activating IgG antibodies that recognize platelet factor 4 (PF4) bound to heparin. Immunogenicity of heparins differs in that unfractionated heparin (UFH) induces more anti-PF4/heparin antibodies than low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and UFH also causes more HIT. Fondaparinux, a synthetic anticoagulant modeled after the antithrombin-binding pentasaccharide, is believed to be nonimmunogenic. We tested 2726 patients for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies after they were randomized to receive antithrombotic prophylaxis with fondaparinux or LMWH (enoxaparin) following hip or knee surgery. We also evaluated in vitro cross-reactivity of the IgG antibodies generated against PF4 in the presence of UFH, LMWH, danaparoid, or fondaparinux. We found that anti-PF4/heparin antibodies were generated at similar frequencies in patients treated with fondaparinux or enoxaparin. Although antibodies reacted equally well in vitro against PF4/UFH and PF4/LMWH, and sometimes weakly against PF4/danaparoid, none reacted against PF4/fondaparinux, including even those sera obtained from patients who formed antibodies during fondaparinux treatment. At high concentrations, however, fondaparinux inhibited binding of HIT antibodies to PF4/polysaccharide, indicating that PF4/fondaparinux interactions occur. No patient developed HIT. We conclude that despite similar immunogenicity of fondaparinux and LMWH, PF4/fondaparinux, but not PF4/LMWH, is recognized poorly by the antibodies generated, suggesting that the risk of HIT with fondaparinux likely is very low.     

Unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin for the initial treatment of acute venous thromboembolism

Anticoagulant drugs represent the therapy of choice for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) in adjusted doses and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in fixed doses are equally as effective and safe. Proper use of UFH requires considerable expertise, can cause inconvenience and has limitations. The use of LMWHs has multiple advantages over UFH including a more predictable dose-response and fixed administration dose. These properties make the treatment of suitable patients feasible in an outpatient setting. In two major clinical trials addressing the treatment of deep vein thrombosis, outpatient management with LMWH was associated with a substantial cost reduction compared with inpatient treatment using UFH. Recent studies have also shown that LMWHs are at least as effective and safe as UFH for the treatment of non-critical patients with pulmonary embolism. Whether or not home treatment of pulmonary embolism is feasible and safe remains to be demonstrated.     

Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding which pharmacological agents most effectively prevent venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to determine this. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1950, 1966, and 1800, respectively, through June 30, 2006, for randomized controlled trials that involved medical patients comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin or heparinoid (LMWH) with a control, LMWH with UFH, or selective factor Xa inhibitors with a comparator. Study selection, validity assessment, and data abstraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers (L.W. and S.W.). Data synthesis was undertaken by 1 blinded investigator (S.J.H.). RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included. Compared with the control, UFH was associated with a reduced risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (risk ratio [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.42) and pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82), as was LMWH (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70; and RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64, respectively). A UFH dosage of 5000 U 3 times daily was more effective in preventing DVT than a UFH dosage of 5000 U twice daily when compared with the control (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.36; vs RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.96). Neither UFH nor LMWH reduced mortality. When directly compared with UFH, LMWH was associated with a lower risk of DVT (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88) and injection site hematoma (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62), but no difference was seen between the 2 agents in the risk of bleeding or thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Both UFH and LMWH reduce venous thromboembolic risk in hospitalized medical patients, but neither agent alters mortality. When directly compared, LMWH is more effective in preventing DVT.     

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically ill patients: a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) or fondaparinux for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), in medically-ill patients. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been evaluated relative to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis though head-to-head comparisons of these agents are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of established treatments and DOACs for VTE prophylaxis in medically-ill patients. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify randomized trials evaluating UFH, LMWHs or DOACS for the prevention of VTE in medically ill patients. Articles were retrieved and cross-referenced for additional trials, evaluated and entered into ADDIS (version 1.16.6) to generate direct and indirect treatment comparisons for VTE, DVT, PE, death from any cause, and bleeding. Ten articles were included and eight anticoagulants were evaluated in a treatment network representing data on 28,382 patients. We found each treatment had similar efficacy in preventing VTE, DVT, PE, death from any cause and each had similar risk of minor and major bleeding. Overall, placebo was associated with more VTE and DVT events compared to LMWHs and DOACs. We found that UFH, LMWHs and DOACs are comparable in preventing VTE, DVT, PE, and death from any cause and in association with minor and major bleeding. Anticoagulant selection for VTE prophylaxis in medically-ill patients should be individualized by patient characteristics, risks and preferences along with specific pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations.     

Haemostasis and Thrombosis: Current Clinical Practice: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in The Prophylaxis and Treatment of Thrombo-Embolic Disease

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) fractions are prepared from standard unfractionated heparin (UFH) and are thus similar to it in many aspects. The major advantages of LMWH are improved efficacy and safety, longer half-life and reduced need for laboratory monitoring. In addition, the dangers of UFH administered by continuous infusion in the hospital setting are often not fully appreciated and the necessary monitoring and dosage adjustment poorly carried out resulting in inadequate doses being given. LMWHs are the drug of choice in many clinical situations. Four LMWHs are now licensed in the UK for prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism during or after surgery (Certoparin, Dalteparin [Fragmin], Enoxaparin [Lovenox/Clexane] and Tinzaparin [Innohep]; a fifth is licensed but not currently available in the UK. Dalteparin, Enoxaparin and Tinzaparin are licensed for the treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), and Tinzaparin additionally for the treatment of Pulmonary Embolism (PE), but so far none is licensed for use in pregnancy or paediatrics.     

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: 2008 update

Opinion statement Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) preparations are two of the most commonly prescribed medications in the hospital, and indications for their use are increasing. An increasingly recognized untoward effect of either UFH or LMWH is heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a transient, prothrombotic condition that may result in venous or arterial thrombosis and amputation or death. This immune-mediated process generally develops within 4 to 14 days of administration, although it may occur more rapidly if there has been a recent exposure; it may even occur days to weeks after UFH or LMWH has been discontinued. Although once considered necessary for the diagnosis of HIT, thrombocytopenia is no longer essential. A 50% reduction in the platelet count from pre-heparin treatment levels is now considered a more specific finding. Prompt recognition, discontinuation of the offending agent, and initiation of an alternative anticoagulant are essential for prevention and/or treatment of these potentially devastating complications.     

Risk for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis: a meta-analysis

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an uncommon but potentially devastating complication of anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Our objective was to determine and compare the incidences of HIT in surgical and medical patients receiving thromboprophylaxis with either UFH or LMWH. All relevant studies identified in the MEDLINE database (1984-2004), not limited by language, and from reference lists of key articles were evaluated. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with UFH and LMWH and measuring HIT or thrombocytopenia as outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on thromboprophylaxis (type, dose, frequency, and duration), definition of thrombocytopenia, HIT assay, and rates of the following outcomes: HIT, thrombocytopenia, and thromboembolic events. HIT was defined as a decrease in platelets to less than 50% or to less than 100 x 10(9)/L and positive laboratory HIT assay. Fifteen studies (7287 patients) were eligible: 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) measuring HIT (1014 patients), 3 prospective studies (1464 patients) with nonrandomized comparison groups in which HIT was appropriately measured in both groups, and 10 RCTs (4809 patients) measuring thrombocytopenia but not HIT. Three analyses were performed using a random effects model and favored the use of LMWH: (1) RCTs measuring HIT showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.2; P = .03); (2) prospective studies measuring HIT showed an OR of 0.10 (95% CI, 0.03-0.33; P < .001); (3) all 15 studies measured thrombocytopenia. The OR was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.22-1.02; P = .06). The inverse variance-weighted average that determined the absolute risk for HIT with LMWH was 0.2%, and with UFH the risk was 2.6%. Most studies were of patients after orthopedic surgery.     

Periprocedural thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy

Patients receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy pose a clinical challenge when therapy needs to be interrupted for surgical or invasive procedures. Maintaining anticoagulation places them at risk for serious bleeding complications, whereas discontinuing anticoagulation puts them at risk of thromboembolic complications. Most patients can undergo dental procedures, cataract surgery, and diagnostic endoscopy without discontinuing anticoagulation. The main patient groups that may require a periprocedural alternative to oral anticoagulation (periprocedural thromboprophylaxis or bridging) include patients with prosthetic heart valves, atrial fibrillation, and hypercoagulable states and patients with chronic venous thrombosis who are undergoing surgery. Currently, there is little consensus on the appropriate perioperative treatment of patients on long-term warfarin therapy. There are an increasing number of studies that evaluate the benefits of periprocedural bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in place of unfractionated heparin (UFH). An advantage of LMWH over UFH is that perioperative conversion from warfarin therapy with LMWH can be carried out in the outpatient setting, which is more convenient for patients and is cost effective. As with the use of UFH, there are reports of maternal thromboembolic complications with LMWHs in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves. This review brings together the available data on periprocedural bridging to assess the available options for patients on long-term warfarin therapy who are undergoing surgical procedures. It provides a rationale for using LMWHs while individualizing the risks versus benefits in a given patient population.     

Differences between low-molecular-weight and unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prevention following ischemic stroke: a metaanalysis

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a major cause of morbidity following stroke. The optimal form of pharmacologic prophylaxis following stroke is unknown. METHODS: We identified randomized trials comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE prevention in ischemic stroke patients. We focused on the risk for VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding, and mortality as a function of the type of agent used for prophylaxis. Findings were pooled with a random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified three trials including 2,028 patients. Two of the studies were blinded, two studies relied on enoxaparin, while one study utilized certoparin. In two studies, UFH was administered three times a day, while it was administered twice daily in the remaining study. The use of LMWH was associated with a significant risk reduction for any VTE (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.70; p < 0.001). Limiting the analysis to proximal VTEs also indicated that LMWHs were superior (OR with LMWH vs UFH, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.75; p < 0.001). LMWH use led to fewer PEs as well (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.95; p = 0.042). There were no differences in rates of overall bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, or mortality based on the type of agent employed. Restricting the analysis to the reports employing enoxaparin did not alter our findings. CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic use of LMWH compared to UFH following ischemic stroke is associated with a reduction in both VTE and PE. This benefit is not associated with an increased incidence of bleeding. Broader use of LMWH for VTE prevention after ischemic stroke is warranted.     

Low molecular weight heparin (Alfa LHWH) compared with unfractionated heparin in prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after hip fractures

Efficacy and safety of a low molecular weight heparin (Alfa LMWH) was compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the prevention of post-operative venous thromboembolism after hip fractures. Forty-nine patients were randomized to treatment with Alfa LMWH 7500 anti-Xa coagulometric units twice daily or with UFH 5000 IU t.i.d. Screening for thrombosis was performed with 125-I-fibrinogen leg scanning and strain-gauge plethysmography. Positive results were confirmed by venography. Five patients in the Alfa LMWH group (20 per cent) developed venographycally proven deep vein thrombosis (DVT) versus seven (29 per cent) in the UFH group. One pulmonary embolism and two deaths occurred in the UFH group and none in the LMWH group. No differences in haemorrhagic complications and blood loss indices were observed. Alfa LMWH appears to be a promising drug for prevention of venous thromboembolism after orthopaedic surgery. A "flexible" schedule of administration is proposed on the basis of the results of plasma anti-Xa assays.