Key result
Low-molecular-weight heparins and direct antithrombin agents offer promising alternatives to unfractionated heparin in interventional radiology, addressing limitations like thrombocytopenia.
This review outlines the strengths and weaknesses of unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, and direct antithrombin agents for use in interventional radiology and vascular procedures.
May inform anticoagulant choice for heparin-intolerant patients in IR; leaves open need for prospective trials before practice change.
Interventional radiology techniques made possible by the antithrombotic properties of heparin have revolutionized treatment for a myriad of disorders. Newer low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) offer several advantages over unfractionated heparin (UFH), especially in chronic settings. They are increasing in popularity for use during vascular procedures. However, LMWH shares limitations with UFH such as heterogeneity, nonspecificity, and induction of thrombocytopenia. These drawbacks have led to a search for the next generation of antithrombotic agents. Homogeneous drugs targeting specific coagulation cascade molecules are now available. The number of alternative anticoagulant drug combinations presents clinicians with a confusing array of choices. The strengths and weaknesses of UFH, LMWH, and direct antithrombin agents are presented. The promising future of LMWH and hirudins is discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Resnick et al. (2005) conducted a review in Disorders requiring interventional radiology and vascular procedures. Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct antithrombin agents vs. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was evaluated. Low-molecular-weight heparins and direct antithrombin agents offer promising alternatives to unfractionated heparin in interventional radiology, addressing limitations like thrombocytopenia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: