Dataset Information

Bemiparin versus Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism among Intensive Care Unit Patients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Critically ill patients are considered a high-risk group for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to their impaired cardiopulmonary reserve, these VTEs may result in significant morbidity and mortality. In this study, we compared two types of low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, and bemiparin, as regards to their efficacy and safety in VTE prevention among Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. METHODS:This study was a prospective, randomized trial of 100 critically ill patients who are at high risk for developing VTE were included in this study and assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of either 3500 international units (IU) anti-factor Xa of bemiparin sodium or 40 mg of enoxaparin given once a day and patient were followed for 60 days after initiation of anticoagulant therapy for the development of documented deep venous thrombosis (DVT) using bilateral lower limb venous duplex, documented pulmonary embolism using computed tomography pulmonary angiography, and complications related to injectant anticoagulant. RESULTS:Confirmed DVT was observed in two patients (4%) in the bemiparin group compared with 10 patients (20%) in the enoxaparin group with P < 0.05. Confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE) was observed in seven patients (14%) in the enoxaparin group with no recorded cases of confirmed PE in the bemiparin group (P < 0.05). No deaths were recorded in either group. Adverse events such as ecchymosis or hematoma at the injection site were observed in one patient (2%) in the bemiparin group and eight patients (16%) in the enoxaparin group (P < 0.05). There was no significant statistical difference between both groups as regards other adverse effects and complications related to the injectant anticoagulant. CONCLUSION:Bemiparin was superior to enoxaparin as a prophylactic anticoagulant for VTE in critically ill patients with less adverse local complications at the injection site. The study was registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov. Registration ID: NCT02795065. Registered June 8, 2016.

SUBMITTER: Abbas MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5538088 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bemiparin versus Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism among Intensive Care Unit Patients.

Abbas Mohamed Sayed MS

Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine 20170701 7

<h4>Background</h4>Critically ill patients are considered a high-risk group for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to their impaired cardiopulmonary reserve, these VTEs may result in significant morbidity and mortality. In this study, we compared two types of low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, and bemiparin, as regards to their efficacy and safety in VTE prevention among Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This study was a prospective, randomized trial of 100 crit ...[more]

PMID: 28808360

Similar Datasets

Project description:Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a preventable complication of critical illness, and this guideline aims to convey a pragmatic approach to the problem. Guidelines have multiplied over the last decade, and their utility has become increasingly conflicted as the reader interprets all suggestions or recommendations as something that must be followed. The nuances of grade of recommendation vs level of evidence are often ignored, and the difference between a "we suggest" vs a "we recommend" is overlooked. There is a general unease among clinicians that failure to follow the guidelines translates to poor medical practice and legal culpability. We attempt to overcome these limitations by highlighting ambiguity when it occurs and refraining from dogmatic recommendations in the absence of robust evidence. Readers and practitioners may find the lack of specific recommendations unsatisfactory, but we believe that true ambiguity is better than inaccurate certainty. We have attempted to comply with the guidelines on how to create guidelines.1 And to overcome the poor compliance with these guidelines.2 Some observers have expressed concern that DVT prophylaxis guidelines may cause more harm than good.3 We have placed greater emphasis on large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinical end point and de-emphasized RCTs with surrogate end points and also de-emphasized hypothesis generating studies (observational studies, small RCTs, and meta-analysis of these studies). We have de-emphasized RCTs in non-intensive care unit populations like postoperative patients or those with cancer and stroke. We have also considered resource limitation settings and have avoided recommending costly and poorly proven therapeutic options.How to cite this articleJagiasi BG, Chhallani AA, Dixit SB, Kumar R, Pandit RA, Govil D, et al. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Statement for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in the Critical Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(S2):S51-S65.

Dataset Information

Bemiparin versus Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism among Intensive Care Unit Patients.

Publications

Bemiparin versus Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism among Intensive Care Unit Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets