Key result
Enoxaparin monotherapy was associated with a similar rate of recurrent thromboembolic events compared to acenocoumarol (2.2% vs 3.0%; HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.38-4.79; P=0.64).
Why the study?
Does enoxaparin monotherapy prevent recurrent thromboembolic events as effectively as acenocoumarol in noncancer patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism?
Cohort (n=380)
Does enoxaparin monotherapy prevent recurrent thromboembolic events as effectively as acenocoumarol in noncancer patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism?
Hazard Ratio: 1.35 (95% CI 0.38–4.79)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.2% vs 3%
p-value: p=0.64
Enoxaparin monotherapy is as effective and safe as acenocoumarol for secondary prevention of pulmonary embolism in noncancer patients, while significantly reducing hospital length of stay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not yet alter anticoagulation choices in noncancer PE; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm equivalence.
Castro et al. (2007) conducted a cohort in symptomatic pulmonary embolism (n=380). enoxaparin vs. acenocoumarol was evaluated on symptomatic recurrent thromboembolic events (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.38-4.79, p=0.64). Enoxaparin monotherapy was associated with a similar rate of recurrent thromboembolic events compared to acenocoumarol (2.2% vs 3.0%; HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.38-4.79; P=0.64).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: