Why the study?
Does low molecular weight heparin improve outcomes and reduce costs compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism?
Does low molecular weight heparin improve outcomes and reduce costs compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism?
LMWH offers a safe, effective, and cost-saving alternative to UFH for the treatment of DVT, enabling outpatient management.
May support outpatient LMWH for acute VTE with cost savings; leaves open confirmation in contemporary RCTs.
Over the past decade, the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) preparations has revolutionized the approach to preventing and treating venous thromboembolism. For established deep venous thrombosis, numerous prospective clinical trials have indicated that these drugs are at least as safe and as effective as standard, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and perhaps even more effective at preventing recurrences. Advantages of low molecular weight heparin include superior bioavailability compared with standard heparin, once- or twice-daily subcutaneous delivery, and the lack of need to monitor in most clinical circumstances. Because of these advantages, increasing numbers of stable, compliant patients with deep venous thrombosis are being treated as outpatients. This approach requires an organized team effort with comprehensive patient education and carefully planned follow-up. Cost-benefit analyses have unequivocally proved that when treatment with low molecular weight heparin is utilized in the outpatient setting, there are substantial cost savings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Victor F. Tapson (2000) studied this question.