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.
Highlights
In daily clinical practice, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) are the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant drugs for the treatment of acute thrombotic conditions, such as venous thromboembolism (VTE) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS).Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) have some advantages over Unfractionated Heparin (UFH), including higher bioavailability and a more predictable anticoagulant effect
Treatment with UFH needs laboratory monitoring with Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time, because its anticoagulant effect is unpredictable, it has the advantage that bleeding complications can be more managed, because UFH has a shorter half-life than LMWH, and can be effectively antagonized by protamine [1]
After the exclusion of irrelevant studies, which were identified by reviewing the titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, 112 publications remained for analysis
Summary
Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) are the most commonly prescribed anticoagulant drugs for the treatment of acute thrombotic conditions, such as venous thromboembolism (VTE) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). LMWH have some advantages over UFH, including higher bioavailability and a more predictable anticoagulant effect. These properties allow the use of LMWH at weight-adjusted doses in most patients, without the need for laboratory monitoring. Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) are at least as effective antithrombotic drugs as Unfractionated Heparin (UFH). 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).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
