Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

Abstract

Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism.

Low-Dose Alteplase versus Conventional Anticoagulation to treat Submassive Pulmonary Embolism in Hispanic Patients

“…This corresponds with a low anticipated bleeding risk in the heparin-only and reduced-dose tPA (and heparin afterward) regimens, which have been reported to range below 2%. 11,26 Mean total LOS for all patients in our cohort was 6.3 days. This is comparable to previously published cohorts with a mean LOS of 5 to 7 days for patients with submassive PE.…”

Low-Dose Alteplase versus Conventional Anticoagulation to treat Submassive Pulmonary Embolism in Hispanic Patients

“…This corresponds with a low anticipated bleeding risk in the heparin-only and reduced-dose tPA (and heparin afterward) regimens, which have been reported to range below 2%. 11,26 Mean total LOS for all patients in our cohort was 6.3 days. This is comparable to previously published cohorts with a mean LOS of 5 to 7 days for patients with submassive PE.…”

When Pigs Fly: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Navigating a Critical Heparin Shortage

“…For example, LMWH has many advantages over UFH in that it has reliable bioavailability, easier administration, decreased time to therapeutic anticoagulation, and excellent safety profile. Moreover, a recent Cochrane analysis of 29 studies and more than 10,000 patients explored the differences between UFH and LMWH in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and found that fixed dose low molecular weight heparin reduced the incidence of recurrent thrombotic complications and occurrence of major hemorrhage during initial treatment compared with unfractionated heparin . We will continue to encourage the use of LMWH even after the crisis given these substantial gains.…”

Things We Do for No Reason™: Routine use of unfractionated heparin for initial anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism

“…[OR]: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.90) and greater thrombus size regression (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61-0.82). 9 In 2009, a study found that LMWH was associated with a 77% reduction in the risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) when compared with UFH. 10 In another retrospective study comparing therapeutic UFH to LMWH, UFH had 2.4 times the odds of bleeding.…”

Low-Dose Alteplase versus Conventional Anticoagulation to treat Submassive Pulmonary Embolism in Hispanic Patients

“…This corresponds with a low anticipated bleeding risk in the heparin-only and reduced-dose tPA (and heparin afterward) regimens, which have been reported to range below 2%. 11,26 Mean total LOS for all patients in our cohort was 6.3 days. This is comparable to previously published cohorts with a mean LOS of 5 to 7 days for patients with submassive PE.…”

When Pigs Fly: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Navigating a Critical Heparin Shortage

“…For example, LMWH has many advantages over UFH in that it has reliable bioavailability, easier administration, decreased time to therapeutic anticoagulation, and excellent safety profile. Moreover, a recent Cochrane analysis of 29 studies and more than 10,000 patients explored the differences between UFH and LMWH in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and found that fixed dose low molecular weight heparin reduced the incidence of recurrent thrombotic complications and occurrence of major hemorrhage during initial treatment compared with unfractionated heparin . We will continue to encourage the use of LMWH even after the crisis given these substantial gains.…”

Things We Do for No Reason™: Routine use of unfractionated heparin for initial anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism

“…[OR]: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.90) and greater thrombus size regression (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61-0.82). 9 In 2009, a study found that LMWH was associated with a 77% reduction in the risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) when compared with UFH. 10 In another retrospective study comparing therapeutic UFH to LMWH, UFH had 2.4 times the odds of bleeding.…”

Low-Dose Alteplase versus Conventional Anticoagulation to treat Submassive Pulmonary Embolism in Hispanic Patients

“…This corresponds with a low anticipated bleeding risk in the heparin-only and reduced-dose tPA (and heparin afterward) regimens, which have been reported to range below 2%. 11,26 Mean total LOS for all patients in our cohort was 6.3 days. This is comparable to previously published cohorts with a mean LOS of 5 to 7 days for patients with submassive PE.…”

When Pigs Fly: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Navigating a Critical Heparin Shortage

“…For example, LMWH has many advantages over UFH in that it has reliable bioavailability, easier administration, decreased time to therapeutic anticoagulation, and excellent safety profile. Moreover, a recent Cochrane analysis of 29 studies and more than 10,000 patients explored the differences between UFH and LMWH in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and found that fixed dose low molecular weight heparin reduced the incidence of recurrent thrombotic complications and occurrence of major hemorrhage during initial treatment compared with unfractionated heparin . We will continue to encourage the use of LMWH even after the crisis given these substantial gains.…”

Things We Do for No Reason™: Routine use of unfractionated heparin for initial anticoagulation in venous thromboembolism

“…[OR]: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.90) and greater thrombus size regression (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61-0.82). 9 In 2009, a study found that LMWH was associated with a 77% reduction in the risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) when compared with UFH. 10 In another retrospective study comparing therapeutic UFH to LMWH, UFH had 2.4 times the odds of bleeding.…”