Key result
Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (CY 216) was more effective on phlebographic scores than continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in 166 patients with deep vein thrombosis.
Why the study?
Does subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (CY 216) improve phlebographic scores compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin in patients with deep vein thrombosis?
Population
166 patients with deep vein thrombosis
Comparison
Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin in… vs Continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin…
Design
RCT, randomised, blind quantitative evaluation of venograms
Authors
Loading...
Supports subcutaneous LMWH for DVT; extends RCT evidence favoring it over IV UFH.
RCT (n=166)
Blinded evaluation of venograms
Randomized
Does subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (CY 216) improve phlebographic scores compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin in patients with deep vein thrombosis?
Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (CY 216) is more effective than continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin for treating deep vein thrombosis, without increasing bleeding or embolic risks.
Ninet et al. (1991) conducted an RCT in Deep vein thrombosis (n=166). Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (CY 216) vs. Continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin was evaluated on Arnesen and Marder phlebographic scores. Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (CY 216) was more effective on phlebographic scores than continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in 166 patients with deep vein thrombosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: