Key result
Low-molecular-weight heparin is at least as effective as unfractionated heparin for the treatment of pulmonary embolism, with a similar risk of bleeding and more predictable pharmacokinetics.
Why the study?
Is low-molecular-weight heparin as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for the inpatient and outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism?
Population
Patients with pulmonary embolism (including submassive PE)
Comparison
Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs Unfractionated heparin (UFH)
Design
Review
Authors
Loading...
May support LMWH preference for PE; leaves open need for contemporary RCTs on outpatient outcomes.
Is low-molecular-weight heparin as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for the inpatient and outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism?
Low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended over unfractionated heparin for submassive pulmonary embolism due to comparable efficacy, similar bleeding risk, and the potential for feasible outpatient management.
Russell D. Hull (2008) conducted a review in Pulmonary embolism. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was evaluated. Low-molecular-weight heparin is at least as effective as unfractionated heparin for the treatment of pulmonary embolism, with a similar risk of bleeding and more predictable pharmacokinetics.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: