Why the study?
Does continuous intravenous infusion of heparin improve clinical outcomes and safety compared to intermittent heparin therapy in patients with deep venous thrombosis?
Does continuous intravenous infusion of heparin improve clinical outcomes and safety compared to intermittent heparin therapy in patients with deep venous thrombosis?
Continuous intravenous infusion of heparin is more effective and safer than intermittent bolus therapy for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Continuous infusion was associated with better DVT outcomes; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
In this prospective study the authors compared two approaches to heparin therapy, in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis—continuous infusion heparin and intermittent heparin therapy. Each group was comparable with respect to age, gender, risk factors, and etiologic factors. The continuous infusion group (n=60) received a heparin bolus of 150 U/kg followed by continuous intravenous infusion of 750 U/kg/twenty-four hours. The intermittent group (n=60) received a bolus of 5000 U in every four hour period. In the infusion therapy group, the resolution of clinical symptoms was more rapid, so the hospitalization time was shorter, and the hemorrhagic complications and relapses were fewer than with intermittent therapy. The authors conclude that administration of heparin by continuous infusion appears to be effective and safer than intermittent injection therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erdem et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: