Display options
Cite
McGarry LJ, Stokes ME, Thompson D. Outcomes of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin in medical inpatients. Thromb J. 2006;4:17doi: 10.1186/1477-9560-4-17.
McGarry, L. J., Stokes, M. E., & Thompson, D. (2006). Outcomes of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin in medical inpatients. Thrombosis journal, 417. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-9560-4-17
McGarry, Lisa J, et al. "Outcomes of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin in medical inpatients." Thrombosis journal vol. 4 (2006): 17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-9560-4-17
McGarry LJ, Stokes ME, Thompson D. Outcomes of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin in medical inpatients. Thromb J. 2006 Sep 27;4:17. doi: 10.1186/1477-9560-4-17. PMID: 17005045; PMCID: PMC1624807.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Thromb J. 2006 Sep 27;4:17. doi: 10.1186/1477-9560-4-17.

Outcomes of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin in medical inpatients.

Thrombosis journal

Lisa J McGarry, Michael E Stokes, David Thompson

Affiliations

  1. Health Economics & Outcomes Research, i3 Innovus, 10 Cabot Rd, Suite 304, Medford, MA 02155-5173, USA.

PMID: 17005045 PMCID: PMC1624807 DOI: 10.1186/1477-9560-4-17

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to be at least as safe and efficacious as unfractionated heparin (UFH) for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely-ill medical inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and economic outcomes among acutely-ill medical inpatients receiving the LMWH enoxaparin versus UFH prophylaxis in clinical practice.

METHODS: Using a large, multi-hospital, US database, we identified persons aged > or =40 years hospitalized for > or =6 days for an acute medical condition (including circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders, infectious diseases, or neoplasms) from Q4 1999 to Q1 2002. From these patients, those who received thromboprophylaxis with either enoxaparin or UFH were identified. Surgical patients and those requiring or ineligible for anticoagulation were excluded. We compared the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and all VTE (i.e., DVT and/or PE). Secondary outcomes were occurrence of side-effects, length of hospital stay and total costs.

RESULTS: 479 patients received enoxaparin prophylaxis and 2,837 received UFH. The incidence of VTE was 1.7% with enoxaparin prophylaxis versus 6.3% with UFH (RR = 0.26; p < 0.001). Occurrence of side effects, length of stay (10.00 days with enoxaparin vs. 10.26 days with UFH; p = 0.348) and total costs ($18,777 vs. $17,602; p = 0.463) were similar in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION: We observed a 74% lower risk of VTE among patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis versus UFH prophylaxis. There was no significant difference in side effects or economic outcomes. These results provide evidence that the LMWH enoxaparin is more effective than UFH in reducing the risk of VTE in current clinical practice.

References

  1. Haemostasis. 1996 May-Jun;26(3):127-39 - PubMed
  2. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Oct 15;127(8 Pt 2):757-63 - PubMed
  3. Thromb Res. 1990 Aug 1;59(3):639-50 - PubMed
  4. Chest. 2004 Sep;126(3 Suppl):338S-400S - PubMed
  5. Haemostasis. 1996;26 Suppl 2:49-56 - PubMed
  6. Thromb Haemost. 1996 Oct;76(4):529-34 - PubMed
  7. Am Heart J. 2003 Apr;145(4):614-21 - PubMed

Publication Types