Key result
Low molecular weight heparin required no dose adjustment in 48% of patients compared to 24% with unfractionated heparin, with both groups achieving 50% phlebographic improvement.
Why the study?
Does low molecular weight heparin improve phlebographic outcomes or safety compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with deep venous thrombosis?
Population
56 patients with phlebographically proven deep venous thrombosis (DVT)
Comparison
Low molecular weight heparin subcutaneous… vs Unfractionated heparin subcutaneous injections…
Design
RCT, double-blind
Follow-up
7 days
Authors
Loading...
Supports LMWH as practical alternative to UFH in DVT; confirms comparable phlebographic efficacy with fewer dose adjustments.
RCT (n=56)
Double-blind
Does low molecular weight heparin improve phlebographic outcomes or safety compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with deep venous thrombosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 50% vs 50%
Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin appears as safe and effective as unfractionated heparin for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis, with less frequent need for dose adjustment.
Holm et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (n=56). Low molecular weight heparin (LH) vs. Unfractionated heparin (UH) was evaluated on Phlebographic improvement. Low molecular weight heparin required no dose adjustment in 48% of patients compared to 24% with unfractionated heparin, with both groups achieving 50% phlebographic improvement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: