Deep vein thrombosis landmark trials in treatment

Revision as of 19:53, 27 May 2012 by Kashish Goel (talk | contribs) (/* Meta-analysis of Home versus inpatient treatment of DVT{{cite journal |author=Schraibman IG, Milne AA, Royle EM |title=Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis |journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev |volume= |issue=2 |pages=CD0030...)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deep Vein Thrombosis Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Deep vein thrombosis from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Triggers

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Approach

Assessment of Clinical Probability and Risk Scores

Assessment of Probability of Subsequent VTE and Risk Scores

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Ultrasound

Venography

CT

MRI

Other Imaging Findings

Treatment

Treatment Approach

Medical Therapy

IVC Filter

Invasive Therapy

Surgery

Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Special Scenario

Upper extremity DVT

Recurrence

Pregnancy

Trials

Landmark Trials

Case Studies

Case #1

Deep vein thrombosis landmark trials in treatment On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Deep vein thrombosis landmark trials in treatment

CDC on Deep vein thrombosis landmark trials in treatment

Deep vein thrombosis landmark trials in treatment in the news

Blogs on Deep vein thrombosis landmark trials in treatment

Directions to Hospitals Treating Deep vein thrombosis

Risk calculators and risk factors for Deep vein thrombosis landmark trials in treatment

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor-In-Chief: Ujjwal Rastogi, MBBS [2]; Kashish Goel,M.D.

Landmark Clinical Trials

Trials assessing treatment

Trials comparing Low-molecular-weight Heparin With subcutaneous unfractionated Heparin

1. Compare subcutaneous LMWH with unfractionated heparin for treatment of VTE[1]

  • Methods: A total of 720 patients (including those with PE and recurrent VTE) were randomly assigned to subcutaneous LMWH or fixed-dose subcutaneous unfractionated heparin.
  • Results: Subcutaneous LMWH and unfractionated heparin groups had similar incidence of recurrent thromboembolic events (4.2% and 3.9%), mortality (3.3% and 3.3%) and major bleeding (0.8% and 1.1%) during 3-months of follow-up.
  • Conclusions: Subcutaneous LMWH is as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for treatment of VTE.

2. Fixed-Dose Heparin (FIDO) trial[2]

  • Objective: Compare subcutaneous unfractionated heparin with LMWH for treatment of VTE
  • Methods: Randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, noninferiority trial of 708 patients with VTE, who were randomized to unfractionated heparin at an initial dose of 333 U/kg, followed by a fixed dose of 250 U/kg every 12 hours and LMWH at a fixed dose of 100 U/kg every 12 hours. Both treatments were given as outpatients.
  • Results: The are of recurrent VTE (3.8% and 3.4%) and major bleeding (1.1% and 1.4%) was almost similar in the UFH and LMWH groups, respectively.
  • Conclusions: Fixed dose subcutaneous UFH is as effective and safe as LMWH for treatment of VTE in an outpatient setting.

3. Polish multi center trial[3]

  • Methods: A total of 149 patients with DVT were randomly assigned to subcutaneous LMWH or subcutaneous UFH for 10 days.
  • Results: One symptomatic nonfatal PE, two rethromboses and one major leading was noted in the UFH group, compared to none in LMWH group.
  • Conculusions: Subcutaneous fixed-dose LMWH is as effective and safe as subcutaneous UFH in treatment of DVT.

Trials comparing Low-molecular-weight Heparin With intravenous unfractionated Heparin

1. Cochrane meta-analysis[4]

  • Objective: To compare the effectiveness of LMWH with UFH for VTE treatment.
  • Methods: A cochrane collaboration meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH with adjusted dose intravenous or subcutaneous UFH for treatment of VTE was performed.
  • Results: A total of 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Thrombotic complications (3.6% vs. 5.3%; OR, 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85), major hemorrhages (1.1% vs. 1.9%; OR, 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.83) and mortality (4.3% vs. 5.8%; OR, 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.93) was significantly lower in subjects treated with LMWH compared with UFH.
  • Conclusions: Subcutaneous LMWH signficantly reduced the incidence of thrombotic complications, major bleeding and mortality in patients with acute VTE. It is more effective and safer than UFH for the initial treatment of VTE.

2. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of two daily subcutaneous injections of [LMWH]] with intravenous UFH in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. (1990) [5]

  • Methods: A total of 119 patients with acute DVT were randomized to either subcutaneous [[LMWH][ or intravenous UFH.
  • Results: Repeat imaging after 5-7 days showed similar improvement in thrombosis in both groups (76% vs. 61%), whereas 2 patients in UFH group suffered a major bleed compared to 4 patients in LMWH group. After 22 months of mean follow-up, 6 re-thromboses occurred in the UFH group compared with 4 in the LMWH group. Postthrombotic signs and symptoms were similar in both groups.
  • Conclusion: Subcutaneous LMWH is as effective and safe as continuous intravenous UFH in the treatment of DVT of the leg.

Trials regarding the use of Fondaprinux

1. Matisse Investigators[6]

  • Objective: To compare fondaprinux with LMWH for initial treatment of DVT
  • Methods: A randomized double-blind study randomizing 2205 patients with acute DVT to fondaparinux 7.5 mg subcutaneously once daily or enoxaparin for at least 5 days.
  • Results: The rate of recurrent thromboembolic events were similar in the fondaparinux group (3.9%) and enoxaparin (4.1%) was similar. Major bleeding occurred in 1.1% of patients receiving fondaparinux compared with 1.2% in patients receiving enoxparin.
  • Conclusions: Fondaparinux was as effective and safe as Enoxaparin for treatment of acute DVT.

Meta-analysis assessing LMWH dosing[7]

  • Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of once versus rice daily administration of LMWH
  • Methods: A cochrane collaboration meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing the dosing of LMWH.
  • Results: A total of 5 studies enrolling 1508 subjects with acute VTE were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups for the risk of recurrent VTE (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40-1.45), in the risk of major hemorrhagic events (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.62-2.08) or in mortality rates (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49-1.39),
  • Conclusions: Once daily LMWH was as effective and safe as twice daily dosing. However, the increased 95% CI limits imply that there may be a higher risk of recurrent VTE in patients treated with once daily dosing.

Meta-analysis of Home versus inpatient treatment of DVT[8]

  • Objective: To compare the safety, efficacy, patient acceptability and cost implications of home versus in-patient treatment.
  • Methods: A cochrane collaboration meta-analysis was conducted including all randomized controlled trials of home versus hospital treatment of DVT. The patients were treated with either LMWH or UFH.
  • Results: Only 2 trials were found, with some inherent limitations including high exclusion rates, partial hospital treatment of many in the LMWH arms, and comparison of UFH in hospital with LMWH at home. The trials showed that home treatment was no more liable to complications than hospital treatment. Initial results from a smaller trials comparing LMWH treatment in both home and hospital arms came to the same conclusion.
  • Conclusions: Limited evidence suggested that home treatment of DVT is preferred by patients and more cost-effective, without any major complications.

References

  1. Prandoni P, Carnovali M, Marchiori A (2004). "Subcutaneous adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin vs fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism". Arch. Intern. Med. 164 (10): 1077–83. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.10.1077. PMID 15159264. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. Kearon C, Ginsberg JS, Julian JA; et al. (2006). "Comparison of fixed-dose weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin for acute treatment of venous thromboembolism". JAMA. 296 (8): 935–42. doi:10.1001/jama.296.8.935. PMID 16926353. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. Lopaciuk S, Meissner AJ, Filipecki S; et al. (1992). "Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin versus subcutaneous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis: a Polish multicenter trial". Thromb. Haemost. 68 (1): 14–8. PMID 1325076. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. Erkens PM, Prins MH (2010). "Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (9): CD001100. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001100.pub3. PMID 20824828.
  5. Bratt G, Aberg W, Johansson M, Törnebohm E, Granqvist S, Lockner D (1990). "Two daily subcutaneous injections of fragmin as compared with intravenous standard heparin in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT)". Thromb. Haemost. 64 (4): 506–10. PMID 1964751. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  6. Büller HR, Davidson BL, Decousus H; et al. (2004). "Fondaparinux or enoxaparin for the initial treatment of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis: a randomized trial". Ann. Intern. Med. 140 (11): 867–73. PMID 15172900. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  7. van Dongen CJ, MacGillavry MR, Prins MH (2005). "Once versus twice daily LMWH for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD003074. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003074.pub2. PMID 16034885.
  8. Schraibman IG, Milne AA, Royle EM (2001). "Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD003076. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003076. PMID 11406067.

Template:WH Template:WS