Key result
Enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndromes reduced the net clinical endpoint of death, MI, or major bleeding at 30 days (12.5% vs 13.5%; OR 0.90; P=0.051).
Why the study?
Does enoxaparin improve net clinical outcomes compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
Population
49,088 patients with acute coronary syndromes (STEMI or NSTEACS) pooled from 12 randomized trials
Comparison
Enoxaparin as adjunctive antithrombin therapy vs Unfractionated heparin (UFH)
Design
Meta-analysis
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
Supports borderline net benefit with enoxaparin in ACS; extends meta-evidence by balancing ischemic and bleeding outcomes across subgroups.
Meta-Analysis (n=49,088)
Yes
Does enoxaparin improve net clinical outcomes compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
Odds Ratio: 0.9
Absolute Event Rate: 12.5% vs 13.5%
p-value: p=0.051
Enoxaparin provides a net clinical benefit over unfractionated heparin in STEMI patients, driven by reduced death or MI despite increased bleeding, but has a neutral net effect in NSTEACS.
Murphy et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (n=49,088). enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin (UFH) was evaluated on net clinical endpoint (death, MI, or major bleeding by 30 days) (OR 0.90, p=0.051). Enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndromes reduced the net clinical endpoint of death, MI, or major bleeding at 30 days (12.5% vs 13.5%; OR 0.90; P=0.051).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: