Low molecular weight heparins versus unfractionated heparin for acute coronary syndromes

Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparins in conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review

“…Our results were consistent with reported data from Magee et al. that stated inconclusive results from their seven included studies to establish risk of major bleeding between enoxaparin compared to UFH treatment in NSTEACS patients (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80–1.24) 6 . Costantino et al.…”

“…7 Kaul et al 8 reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH. 8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS.…”

“…8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS. Balancing the ischaemic risk versus the bleeding risk remains a challenge, as parameters such as dose and frequency of heparin and patient factors can influence bleeding outcomes.…”

“…reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH 8 . A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 . who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69–1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH 6 .…”

“…Magee et al 6 . conducted a systematic review in 2002 that included 11 092 participants from seven studies published between 1966–2000.…”

Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparins in conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review

“…Our results were consistent with reported data from Magee et al. that stated inconclusive results from their seven included studies to establish risk of major bleeding between enoxaparin compared to UFH treatment in NSTEACS patients (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80–1.24) 6 . Costantino et al.…”

“…7 Kaul et al 8 reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH. 8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS.…”

“…8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS. Balancing the ischaemic risk versus the bleeding risk remains a challenge, as parameters such as dose and frequency of heparin and patient factors can influence bleeding outcomes.…”

“…reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH 8 . A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 . who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69–1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH 6 .…”

“…Magee et al 6 . conducted a systematic review in 2002 that included 11 092 participants from seven studies published between 1966–2000.…”

Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparins in conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review

“…Our results were consistent with reported data from Magee et al. that stated inconclusive results from their seven included studies to establish risk of major bleeding between enoxaparin compared to UFH treatment in NSTEACS patients (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80–1.24) 6 . Costantino et al.…”

“…7 Kaul et al 8 reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH. 8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS.…”

“…8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS. Balancing the ischaemic risk versus the bleeding risk remains a challenge, as parameters such as dose and frequency of heparin and patient factors can influence bleeding outcomes.…”

“…reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH 8 . A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 . who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69–1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH 6 .…”

“…Magee et al 6 . conducted a systematic review in 2002 that included 11 092 participants from seven studies published between 1966–2000.…”

Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparins in conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review

“…Our results were consistent with reported data from Magee et al. that stated inconclusive results from their seven included studies to establish risk of major bleeding between enoxaparin compared to UFH treatment in NSTEACS patients (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80–1.24) 6 . Costantino et al.…”

“…7 Kaul et al 8 reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH. 8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS.…”

“…8 A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69-1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH. 6 Bleeding risk must also be assessed, as bleeding from heparin therapy can lead to further complications such as anaemia or may require blood transfusion, which can independently increase the mortality risk of patients with ACS. Balancing the ischaemic risk versus the bleeding risk remains a challenge, as parameters such as dose and frequency of heparin and patient factors can influence bleeding outcomes.…”

“…reviewed two trials that incorporated 7081 patients to examine mortality events and found no significant difference between enoxaparin and UFH 8 . A similar outcome was determined by Magee et al 6 . who concluded no difference in mortality (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.69–1.44) when treated with either enoxaparin or UFH 6 .…”

“…Magee et al 6 . conducted a systematic review in 2002 that included 11 092 participants from seven studies published between 1966–2000.…”