Low molecular weight heparin (nadroparine) versus oral anticoagulant (acenocoumarol) in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis: comparison of efficacy, safety and hospitalisation period in 105 patients

Abstract

SUMMARYObjective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (nadroparine) and acenocoumarol in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT).Methods: A retrospective study of the case notes of 105 patients (68 men) with established DVT who had been hospitalised during a 6-year period in a university hospital department.Results: Among 105 patients, 65 received nadroparine and the remaining intravenous unfractionated heparin (UH) as initial treatment. Twenty-seven patients out of 65 continued their treatment with nadroparine and the remaining 78 patients (38 initially treated with LMWH and 40 with UH) with acenocoumarol. The average hospital stayfor those on LMWH treatent was 2.2 ± 1.4 days in comparison to 6.4 ± 1.2 days for those treated with acenocoumarol (p < 0.001). During the home-based phase of treatment, 14 patients were re-admitted to hospital for recurrent DVT; ten and four of those treated with acenocoumarol and LMWH, respectively (p = NS). Haemorrhagic complications occurred in 12 of the patients who received acenocoumarol and in one of those on LMWH (p = NS).Conclusions: The patients who received LMWH had a significantly lower duration of hospitalisation than those who received acenocoumarol. There were no significant differences between the administration of LMWH and acenocoumarol in terms of efficacy or safety in patients with DVT.