Key result
Tinzaparin treatment for 6 months in patients with acute pulmonary embolism resulted in recurrent venous thromboembolism in 1.9% of patients compared to 0% of patients receiving acenocoumarol.
Why the study?
Does tinzaparin improve efficacy, safety, and healthcare resource utilization compared to acenocoumarol in symptomatic patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
RCT (n=102)
Open-label
randomized
Yes
Does tinzaparin improve efficacy, safety, and healthcare resource utilization compared to acenocoumarol in symptomatic patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.9% vs 0%
Long-term treatment with tinzaparin for 6 months is a feasible and safe alternative to acenocoumarol for acute pulmonary embolism, associated with shorter hospital stays and less minor bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tinzaparin offers a feasible alternative to acenocoumarol for acute PE with shorter stays; extends LMWH evidence beyond standard VKA regimens.
Pérez‐de‐Llano et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in acute pulmonary embolism (n=102). tinzaparin vs. international normalized ratio-adjusted acenocoumarol was evaluated on recurrent venous thromboembolism. Tinzaparin treatment for 6 months in patients with acute pulmonary embolism resulted in recurrent venous thromboembolism in 1.9% of patients compared to 0% of patients receiving acenocoumarol.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: