Why the study?
Does low molecular weight heparin improve live birth rates in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages?
Does low molecular weight heparin improve live birth rates in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages?
Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly improved live-birth rates in women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss in this observational study.
LMWH was associated with higher live birth rates; leaves open causal benefit in unexplained recurrent miscarriage pending randomized trials.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) improve live birth rates when compared with control group in patients with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (URM). METHODS: In this prospective observational study 150 women with a history of two or more previous unexplained first trimester pregnancy loss who received LMWH; either enoxaparin (n=50), tinzaparin (n=50) or nothing (n=50) were followed for the pregnancy outcome measures. Only the patients who have used standardized dosage of LMWH (4000 IU/day enoxaparin or 3500 IU/day tinzaparin ) were included to the study. The primary end point was the live birth rate and secondary end points were the side effects, late pregnancy complications and neonatal outcome in the study cohorts. RESULTS: Live birth was achieved 85% of the LMWH group and 66% of the control group (p=0.007). According to the subgroup analysis; live birth rates did not differ significantly between the enoxaparin and tinzaparin group (84% and 86%, respectively). Maternal and neonatal side effects were not statistically significant among the study participants. CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH resulted in a improved live-birth rate in patient with 2 or more consecutive unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Nevertheless these findings need to be confirmed in larger randomized trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuksel et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: