Why the study?
Do subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins improve safety and efficacy compared to continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in patients with venous thromboembolism?
Do subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins improve safety and efficacy compared to continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in patients with venous thromboembolism?
Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins offer a potentially safer, more effective, and cost-effective alternative to intravenous unfractionated heparin for treating venous thromboembolism, enabling outpatient management.
Recent studies have indicated that certain low-molecular-weight heparins given subcutaneously may replace continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. Low-molecular-weight heparins have a predictably high absorption rate when given subcutaneously and they do not require laboratory monitoring. These characteristics of low-molecular-weight heparin therapy raise the possibility of treating uncomplicated patients with deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in the outpatient setting. The advantages to the patient of avoiding in-hospital care and its associated hazards are obvious. Outpatient low-molecular-weight heparin will likely prove to be highly cost-effective. At the present time, the finding associated with an individual low-molecular-weight heparin preparation cannot be extrapolated to different low-molecular-weight heparins and each must be evaluated in separate clinical trials. Recent randomized clinical trials indicate that low-molecular-weight heparin may be safer and more effective than continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal venous thrombosis. A decreased mortality rate, which was particularly striking in patients with metastatic carcinoma, was unexpected and requires confirmation in further prospective randomized trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hull et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: