Bleeding Risk during Treatment of Acute Thrombotic Events with Subcutaneous LMWH Compared to Intravenous Unfractionated Heparin; A Systematic Review

Abstract

BackgroundLow Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) are at least as effective antithrombotic drugs as Unfractionated Heparin (UFH). However, it is still unclear whether the safety profiles of LMWH and UFH differ. We performed a systematic review to compare the bleeding risk of fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH and adjusted dose UFH for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Major bleeding was the primary end point.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to May 2010 with no language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials in which subcutaneous LMWH were compared to intravenous UFH for the treatment of acute thrombotic events were selected. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data on study design, study quality, incidence of major bleeding, patients’ characteristics, type, dose and number of daily administrations of LMWH, co-treatments, study end points and efficacy outcome. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects model.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included. A total of 14,002 patients received UFH and 14,635 patients LMWH. Overall, no difference in major bleeding was observed between LMWH patients and UFH (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60–1.04). In patients with VTE LMWH appeared safer than UFH, (OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–1.00).ConclusionThe results of our systematic review suggest that the use of LMWH in the treatment of VTE might be associated with a reduction in major bleeding compared with UFH. The choice of which heparin to use to minimize bleeding risk must be based on the single patient, taking into account the bleeding profile of different heparins in different settings.

Systematic review of the complications following isolated calf deep vein thrombosis

“…Moreover, patients treated with LMWH were more likely to have a major bleed (4·1 versus 0 per cent; P = 0·03). These bleeding complications are in agreement with the average major bleed rate (4·4 per cent) when treating acute DVT with LMWH. Only two other RCTs specifically examined whether or not to treat calf vein thrombosis with anticoagulation; neither found anticoagulation to be more effective than conservative treatment.…”

Can rotational thromboelastometry predict thrombotic complications in reconstructive microsurgery?

“…In our opinion, the subcutaneous application of low‐molecular heparin, as given for prevention of deep venous embolism anyway, is sufficient in most patients. This is especially true since intravenous application of unfractionated heparin has a much higher rate of bleeding complications when compared to subcutaneous application of low‐molecular heparin . Therefore, identification of those patients that will benefit from an intensified anticoagulatory therapy is paramount.…”

Low-molecular-weight heparin and intermittent pneumatic compression for thromboprophylaxis in critical patients

“…Pharmacological prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been demonstrated to reduce VTE rates (5,6). In addition, LMWH may be associated with a reduction in major bleeding compared with unfractionated heparin (7). Furthermore, the trade-off between VTE prevention and excess hemorrhage has prevented the development of a consensus in the guidelines of major professional societies (8).…”