An open-label comparison of the efficacy and safety of certoparin versus unfractionated heparin for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in acutely ill medical patients: CERTAIN
ABSTRACT Guidelines recommend low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely ill medical patients. We report the findings of an open-label, active-controlled, multicenter study in acutely ill medical patients comparing certoparin and UFH.
Open-label, active-controlled, multicenter study. Patients received certoparin 3000 IU daily or UFH 7500 IU twice daily.
The primary endpoint was a composite of symptomatic or asymptomatic proximal or distal deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, or VTE-related death.
172 patients were randomized to UFH and 163 to certoparin for 8.5 ± 2.1 days. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 18.0% in patients receiving UFH and 10.7% with certoparin [absolute difference -7.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.9 to 2.3; p = 0.1353]. The incidence during follow-up was 2.6% in the UFH and 2.0% in the certoparin group (absolute difference -0.6; 95%CI -4.0 to 2.8; p = 0.7150). Major bleeding events occurred in three patients with UFH and one patient with certoparin.
In acutely ill medical patients of at least 40 years of age, thromboprophylaxis with certoparin 3000 IU daily is effective and safe in comparison with 7500 IU twice daily UFH.
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 association between cancer and thrombosis has been recognized for more than 150 years. Not only are patients with cancer at a substantially increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), the link between several coagulation factors and tumor growth, invasion, and the development of metastases has been established. Reported rates of VTE in patients with cancer have increased in recent years likely reflecting, in part, improved diagnosis with sophisticated imaging techniques as well as the impact of more aggressive cancer diagnosis, staging, and treatment. Various therapeutic interventions, such as surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapeutic strategies as well as the frequent use of indwelling catheters and other invasive procedures also place cancer patients at increased risk of VTE. The increasing risk of VTE, the multitude of risk factors, and the greater risk of VTE recurrence and death among patients with cancer represent considerable challenges in modern clinical oncology. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) originally developed guidelines for VTE in patients with cancer in 2007. ASCO recently updated clinical practice guidelines on the treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with cancer following an extensive systematic review of the literature. Revised 2013 guidelines have now been presented and will be discussed in this review. Although several new studies were identified and considered, many important questions remain regarding the relationship between thrombosis and cancer and the optimal care of patients at risk for VTE. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Thrombosis Research 05/2014; 133 Suppl 2:S122-7. DOI:10.1016/S0049-3848(14)50021-7 · 2.43 Impact Factor
Internal and Emergency Medicine 05/2014; 9(5). DOI:10.1007/s11739-014-1087-2 · 2.41 Impact Factor