A double-blind and randomized placebo-controlled trial of low molecular weight heparin once daily to prevent deep-vein thrombosis in acute ischemic stroke.
ABSTRACT The effect of LMW heparin (Kabi 2165, Fragmin) was compared with placebo for the prevention of DVT in 103 patients with acute ischemic stroke using a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial design. Treatment was started within 72 hours, and LMW heparin was administered subcutaneously once daily according to body weight classes, which corresponded to about 55 to 65 Factor-Xa inhibitory U/kg, for 14 days, or until discharge from the hospital, if earlier. All patients underwent thrombosis surveillance with unilateral venography of the paretic limb. Evaluation of venography could be performed in 42 of 52 patients randomized to LMW heparin and in 50 of 51 patients randomized to placebo. The frequency of DVT was 15 of 42 patients or 36% (95% confidence interval 22 to 52%) in the LMW heparin group and 17 of 50 patients or 34% (21 to 49%) in the placebo group. The frequency of proximal thrombi was 5 of 42 (12%) and 8 of 50 (16%), respectively. There was one fatal pulmonary embolism in the placebo group. The mortality rate (28 days follow-up) was 5 of 52 in the LMW heparin group and 1 of 51 in the placebo group (p = 0.24). None of the deaths was related to treatment. No major hemorrhagic complications were observed. The mean Factor Xa inhibitory activity levels at peak concentration were 0.34 U/ml on day 2 and 0.42 U/ml on day 12 (p = 0.02). We conclude that LMW heparin in the dose range studied did not provide efficient prophylaxis against DVT in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
SourceAvailable from: Saurabh Saigal[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Thrombo-prophylaxis has been shown to reduce the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and mortality in surgical patients. The purpose of this review is to find out the evidence-based clinical practice criteria of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis in acutely ill medical and critically ill patients. English-language randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis were included if they provided clinical outcomes and evaluated therapy with low-dose heparin or related agents compared with placebo, no treatment, or other active prophylaxis in the critically ill and medically ill population. For the same, we searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. In acutely ill medical patients on the basis of meta-analysis by Lederle et al. (40 trials) and LIFENOX study, heparin prophylaxis had no significant effect on mortality. The prophylaxis may have reduced PE in acutely ill medical patients, but led to more bleeding events, thus resulting in no net benefit. In critically ill patients, results of meta-analysis by Alhazzani et al. and PROTECT Trial indicate that any heparin prophylaxis compared with placebo reduces the rate of DVT and PE, but not symptomatic DVT. Major bleeding risk and mortality rates were similar. On the basis of MAGELLAN trial and EINSTEIN program, rivaroxaban offers a single-drug approach to the short-term and continued treatment of venous thrombosis. Aspirin has been used as antiplatelet agent, but when the data from two trials the ASPIRE and WARFASA study were pooled, there was a 32% reduction in the rate of recurrence of venous thrombo-embolism and a 34% reduction in the rate of major vascular events.Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine 06/2014; 18(6):382-91. DOI:10.4103/0972-5229.133902
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this document is to provide a clear and concise account of the evidence regarding efficacy or harm for various methods available to prevent and manage venous thromboembolism (VTE).International angiology: a journal of the International Union of Angiology 04/2013; 32(2):111-260. · 1.01 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the last decade, greater focus has been directed toward venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in hospitalized, non-surgical patients. Both deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are potentially preventable causes of patient morbidity and mortality related to hospitalization. Despite the availability of high-quality, evidence-based guidelines for VTE prevention, there is compelling evidence that many hospitalized patients do not receive appropriate VTE prevention measures. Hospitalists play an important role in the implementation of appropriate VTE prophylaxis measures for this patient population; thus, knowledge of updated recommendations is vital to their practice, as well as patient safety. We provide a comprehensive evidence-based clinical review of VTE prophylaxis for nonsurgical hospitalized patients, including risk factors and risk assessment, indications for prophylaxis, recommended therapeutic options, and updates from recently released practice guidelines by the American College of Physicians and the American College of Chest Physicians, published in 2011 and 2012, respectively.08/2013; 41(3):60-9. DOI:10.3810/hp.2013.08.1069