Key result
Enoxaparin appears as safe and effective as UFH for acute pulmonary embolism.
Why the study?
Limited data are available on the use of low-molecular-weight heparin compared to unfractionated heparin in the treatment of acute pulmonary thromboembolism.
Does enoxaparin reduce major bleeding, recurrent VTE, and death compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism?
RCT (n=59)
randomly assigned
Does enoxaparin reduce major bleeding, recurrent VTE, and death compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism?
Absolute Risk Reduction: 6.4
Absolute Event Rate: 3.4% vs 10%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 6.4%
p-value: p=0.318
Subcutaneous enoxaparin appears to be as effective and safe as intravenous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of non-massive acute pulmonary thromboembolism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enoxaparin offers a practical subcutaneous alternative for acute PE; reinforces consensus from prior RCTs on LMWH in VTE.
Findik et al. (2002) conducted an RCT in Acute pulmonary thromboembolism (n=59). Enoxaparin vs. Adjusted dose intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) was evaluated on Combined end point of major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and death at day 90 (absolute difference of 6.4 percentage points, p=0.318). Subcutaneous enoxaparin appeared as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for acute pulmonary thromboembolism, with a 90-day combined endpoint rate of 3.4% vs 10% (p=0.318).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: