Dataset Information

Bleeding risk during treatment of acute thrombotic events with subcutaneous LMWH compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin; a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) are at least as effective antithrombotic drugs as Unfractionated Heparin (UFH). However, it is still unclear whether the safety profiles of LMWH and UFH differ. We performed a systematic review to compare the bleeding risk of fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH and adjusted dose UFH for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Major bleeding was the primary end point.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to May 2010 with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials in which subcutaneous LMWH were compared to intravenous UFH for the treatment of acute thrombotic events were selected. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data on study design, study quality, incidence of major bleeding, patients' characteristics, type, dose and number of daily administrations of LMWH, co-treatments, study end points and efficacy outcome. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects model.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included. A total of 14,002 patients received UFH and 14,635 patients LMWH. Overall, no difference in major bleeding was observed between LMWH patients and UFH (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.04). In patients with VTE LMWH appeared safer than UFH, (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-1.00).

Conclusion

The results of our systematic review suggest that the use of LMWH in the treatment of VTE might be associated with a reduction in major bleeding compared with UFH. The choice of which heparin to use to minimize bleeding risk must be based on the single patient, taking into account the bleeding profile of different heparins in different settings.

SUBMITTER: Costantino G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3439371 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bleeding risk during treatment of acute thrombotic events with subcutaneous LMWH compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin; a systematic review.

Costantino Giorgio G Ceriani Elisa E Rusconi Anna Maria AM Podda Gian Marco GM Montano Nicola N Duca Piergiorgio P Cattaneo Marco M Casazza Giovanni G

PloS one 20120911 9

<h4>Background</h4>Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) are at least as effective antithrombotic drugs as Unfractionated Heparin (UFH). However, it is still unclear whether the safety profiles of LMWH and UFH differ. We performed a systematic review to compare the bleeding risk of fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH and adjusted dose UFH for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Major bleeding was the primary end point.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases (MEDLINE ...[more]

PMID: 22984525

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrediction of thrombotic and bleeding risk is important to optimize antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods and resultsWe developed the prediction rules for thrombotic and bleeding events separately in Japanese patients. Derivation and validation cohorts consisted of 4778 patients from CREDO-Kyoto (Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto) registry cohort 2 and 4669 patients from RESET (Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) and NEXT (Nobori Biolimus-Eluting Versus Xience/Promus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial). Primary thrombotic and bleeding events were a composite of myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis or ischemic stroke, and GUSTO (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries) moderate or severe bleeding. The prediction rule for thrombosis assigned 2 points for severe chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, and anemia and 1 point for age ?75 years, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and chronic total occlusion. The prediction rule for bleeding assigned 2 points for thrombocytopenia, severe chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure and 1 point for prior myocardial infarction, malignancy, and atrial fibrillation. In derivation and validation cohorts, area under the curve was 0.68 and 0.64, respectively, for thrombosis and 0.66 and 0.66, respectively, for bleeding. In the validation cohort, a high thrombosis risk score (?4, n=682) was associated with higher 3-year incidence of thrombotic events than a score that was intermediate (2-3, n=1178) or low (0-1, n=2809) (7.6%, 3.7%, versus 2.4%, respectively; P<0.0001). A high bleeding risk score (?3, n=666) was associated with higher incidence of bleeding than scores that were intermediate (1-2, n=1802) or low (0, n=2201) (8.8%, 4.1%, versus 2.3%, respectively; P<0.0001). Among 682 patients at high thrombotic risk, only 39 (5.7%) had low bleeding risk, whereas 401 (58.8%) had high bleeding risk with very high incidence of bleeding (11.6%).ConclusionsCREDO-Kyoto thrombotic and bleeding risk scores demonstrated modest accuracy in stratifying thrombotic and bleeding risks; however, a large proportion of patients at high thrombotic risk also had high bleeding risk.

Project description:BackgroundLow molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been extensively studied and became the treatment of choice for several indications including pulmonary embolism. While their efficacy in hemodialysis is considered similar to unfractionated heparin (UFH), their safety remains controversial mainly due to a risk of bioaccumulation in patients with renal impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of LMWH when compared to UFH for extracorporeal circuit (ECC) anticoagulation.MethodsWe used Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Trip database and NICE to retrieve relevant studies with no language restriction. We looked for controlled experimental trials comparing LMWH to UFH for ECC anticoagulation among end-stage renal disease patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Studies were kept if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: bleeding, lipid profile, cardiovascular events, osteoporosis or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Two independent reviewers conducted studies selection, quality assessment and data extraction with discrepancies solved by a third reviewer. Relative risk and 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean weighted difference (MWD) with 95% CI was used to pool continuous variables.ResultsSeventeen studies were selected as part of the systematic. The relative risk for total bleeding was 0.76 (95% CI 0.26-2.22). The WMD calculated for total cholesterol was -28.70 mg/dl (95% CI -51.43 to -5.98), a WMD for triglycerides of -55.57 mg/dl (95% CI -94.49 to -16.66) was estimated, and finally LDL-cholesterol had a WMD of -14.88 mg/dl (95% CI -36.27 to 6.51).ConclusionsLMWH showed to be at least as safe as UFH for ECC anticoagulation in chronic hemodialysis. The limited number of studies reporting on osteoporosis and HIT does not allow any conclusion for these outcomes. Larger studies are needed to evaluate properly the safety of LMWH in chronic hemodialysis.

Project description:BackgroundLow-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and heparinoids are anticoagulants that may have more powerful antithrombotic effects than standard unfractionated heparin (UFH) but a lower risk of bleeding complications. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review of these agents, first published in 2001 and last updated in 2008.ObjectivesTo determine whether antithrombotic therapy with LMWHs or heparinoids is associated with a reduction in the proportion of people who are dead or dependent for activities in daily living compared with UFH.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2017), and Embase (1980 to February 2017). We also searched trials registers to February 2017: ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, Stroke Trials Registry, ISRCTN Registry and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Selection criteriaUnconfounded randomised trials comparing LMWH or heparinoids with standard UFH in people with acute ischaemic stroke, in which participants were recruited within 14 days of stroke onset.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently chose studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and trial quality, extracted and analysed the data. Differences were resolved by discussion.Main resultsWe included nine trials involving 3137 participants. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this updated review. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcome in sufficient detail to enable analysis for the review. Overall, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included studies. Compared with UFH, there was no evidence of an effect of LMWH or heparinoids on death from all causes during the treatment period (96/1616 allocated LMWH/heparinoid versus 78/1486 allocated UFH; odds ratio (OR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.47; 8 trials, 3102 participants, low quality evidence). LMWH or heparinoid were associated with a significant reduction in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) compared with UFH (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70, 7 trials, 2585 participants, low quality evidence). However, the number of the major clinical events such as pulmonary embolism (PE) and intracranial haemorrhage was too small to provide a reliable estimate of the effects.Authors' conclusionsTreatment with a LMWH or heparinoid after acute ischaemic stroke appears to decrease the occurrence of DVT compared with standard UFH, but there are too few data to provide reliable information on their effects on other important outcomes, including functional outcome, death and intracranial haemorrhage.

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the safety of colonoscopy in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We examined the various adverse events associated with colonoscopy in acute LGIB compared with non-GIB patients.MethodsEmergency hospitalized LGIB patients (n = 161) and age- and gender-matched non-GIB controls (n = 161) were selected. Primary outcomes were any adverse events during preparation and colonoscopy procedure. Secondary outcomes were five bowel preparation-related adverse events--hypotension, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, volume overload, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia and loss of consciousness--and four colonoscopy-related adverse events--including hypotension, perforation, cerebrocardiovascular events and sepsis.ResultsDuring bowel preparation, 16 (9%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None of the LGIB patients experienced volume overload, aspiration pneumonia or loss of consciousness; however, 12 (7%) had hypotension and 4 (2%) vomited. There were no significant differences in the five bowel preparation-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. During colonoscopy, 25 (15%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None LGIB patient had perforation or sepsis; however, 23 (14%) had hypotension and 2 (1%) experienced a cerebrocardiovascular event. There was no significant difference in the four colonoscopy-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. In addition, no significant difference in any of the nine adverse events was found among subgroups: patients aged ≥65 years, those with comorbidities, and those with antithrombotic drug use.ConclusionsAdverse events in bowel preparation and colonoscopy among acute LGIB patients were low. No significant difference was found in adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. These adverse events were also low in elderly LGIB patients, as well as in those with co-morbidities and antithrombotic drug use, suggesting that colonoscopy performed during acute LGIB did not increase adverse events.

Dataset Information

Bleeding risk during treatment of acute thrombotic events with subcutaneous LMWH compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin; a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Bleeding risk during treatment of acute thrombotic events with subcutaneous LMWH compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin; a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets