[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.82.105. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Figure 1.
Quality of reporting of meta-analyses flow diagram of studies evaluated for inclusion in the meta-analysis. LMWH indicates low-molecular-weight heparin or heparinoid; UFH, unfractionated heparin.

Quality of reporting of meta-analyses flow diagram of studies evaluated for inclusion in the meta-analysis. LMWH indicates low-molecular-weight heparin or heparinoid; UFH, unfractionated heparin.

Figure 2.
Meta-analysis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality when comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) with the control. Results were obtained using the fixed-effects method. Sizes of data markers relate to the weights assigned to each trial. Test for heterogeneity: DVT, P = .02; DVT (UFH, 5000 U twice daily, vs control), P = .02; DVT (UFH, 5000 U 3 times daily, vs control), P = .50; PE, P = .06; and mortality, P = .65. CI indicates confidence interval; IST, International Stroke Trial. * DVT found at autopsy that caused or contributed to death. † Fatal PE.

Meta-analysis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality when comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) with the control. Results were obtained using the fixed-effects method. Sizes of data markers relate to the weights assigned to each trial. Test for heterogeneity: DVT, P = .02; DVT (UFH, 5000 U twice daily, vs control), P = .02; DVT (UFH, 5000 U 3 times daily, vs control), P = .50; PE, P = .06; and mortality, P = .65. CI indicates confidence interval; IST, International Stroke Trial. * DVT found at autopsy that caused or contributed to death. † Fatal PE.

Figure 3.
Meta-analysis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality when comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with the control. Results obtained with the fixed-effects method. Sizes of data markers relate to the weights assigned to each trial. Test for heterogeneity: DVT, P = .13; PE, P = .87; and mortality, P = .80. CI indicates confidence interval; TOAST, Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. * DVT caused early discontinuation of use of study drug. † DVT occurred at day 21 in patients who were assessed for the primary end point.

Meta-analysis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality when comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with the control. Results obtained with the fixed-effects method. Sizes of data markers relate to the weights assigned to each trial. Test for heterogeneity: DVT, P = .13; PE, P = .87; and mortality, P = .80. CI indicates confidence interval; TOAST, Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment.46 * DVT caused early discontinuation of use of study drug. † DVT occurred at day 21 in patients who were assessed for the primary end point.

Figure 4.
Meta-analysis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality when comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Results were obtained using the fixed-effects method. Sizes of data markers relate to the weights assigned to each trial. Test for heterogeneity: DVT, P = .61; PE, P = .77; and mortality, P = .33. CI indicates confidence interval.

Meta-analysis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality when comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Results were obtained using the fixed-effects method. Sizes of data markers relate to the weights assigned to each trial. Test for heterogeneity: DVT, P = .61; PE, P = .77; and mortality, P = .33. CI indicates confidence interval.

Figure 5.
Funnel plots for prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), mortality, and total bleeding. Plots show standard error (SE) of the logarithm of relative risk (RR) vs RR for each study (fixed-effects model).

Funnel plots for prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), mortality, and total bleeding. Plots show standard error (SE) of the logarithm of relative risk (RR) vs RR for each study (fixed-effects model).

Table 1. 
Characteristics of Trials Included in the Meta-analysis
Characteristics of Trials Included in the Meta-analysis
Table 2. 
Quantitative Findings of Meta-analyses for Efficacy and Safety Outcomes
Quantitative Findings of Meta-analyses for Efficacy and Safety Outcomes
1.
Anderson  FA  JrWheeler  HBGoldberg  RJ  et al.  A population-based perspective of the hospital incidence and case-fatality rates of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: the Worcester DVT Study. Arch Intern Med 1991;151 (5) 933- 938
PubMedArticle
2.
Dalen  JE Pulmonary embolism: what have we learned since Virchow? natural history, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. Chest 2002;122 (4) 1440- 1456
PubMedArticle
3.
Goldhaber  SZVisani  LDe Rosa  M Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). Lancet 1999;353 (9162) 1386- 1389
PubMedArticle
4.
Oger  EEPI-GETBP Study Group; Groupe d'Etude de la Thrombose de Bretagne Occidentale, Incidence of venous thromboembolism: a community-based study in Western France. Thromb Haemost 2000;83 (5) 657- 660
PubMed
5.
Samama  MM An epidemiologic study of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis in medical outpatients: the Sirius study. Arch Intern Med 2000;160 (22) 3415- 3420
PubMedArticle
6.
Silverstein  MDHeit  JAMohr  DNPetterson  TMO'Fallon  WMMelton  LJ  III Trends in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a 25-year population-based study. Arch Intern Med 1998;158 (6) 585- 593
PubMedArticle
7.
Goldhaber  SZElliott  CG Acute pulmonary embolism, part I: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. Circulation 2003;108 (22) 2726- 2729
PubMedArticle
8.
Perrier  A Noninvasive diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Haematologica 1997;82 (3) 328- 331
PubMed
9.
Harenberg  JRoebruck  PHeene  DL Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin and the prevention of thromboembolism in medical inpatients: the Heparin Study in Internal Medicine Group. Haemostasis 1996;26 (3) 127- 139
PubMed
10.
Sandler  DAMartin  JF Autopsy proven pulmonary embolism in hospital patients: are we detecting enough deep vein thrombosis? J R Soc Med 1989;82 (4) 203- 205
PubMed
11.
Cardiovascular Disease Education and Research Trust; Cyprus Cardiovascular Disease Educational and Research Trust; European Venous Forum; International Surgical Thrombosis Forum; International Union of Angiology; Union Internationale de Phlebologie, Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism: International Consensus Statement (guidelines according to scientific evidence). Int Angiol 2006;25 (2) 101- 161
PubMed
12.
Stein  PDHenry  JW Prevalence of acute pulmonary embolism among patients in a general hospital and at autopsy. Chest 1995;108 (4) 978- 981
PubMedArticle
13.
Goldhaber  SZTapson  VF A prospective registry of 5,451 patients with ultrasound-confirmed deep vein thrombosis. Am J Cardiol 2004;93 (2) 259- 262
PubMedArticle
14.
Pavanello  RFroehlich  JBTapson  V  et al.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis practices in acutely ill medical patients with heart failure (NYHA class III or IV): findings from IMPROVE [abstract]. Blood 2005;1061869
15.
Goldhaber  SZTurpie  AG Prevention of venous thromboembolism among hospitalized medical patients. Circulation 2005;111 (1) e1- e3
PubMedArticle
16.
Cohen  AT Discoveries in thrombosis care for medical patients. Semin Thromb Hemost 2002;28 ((suppl 3)) 13- 17
PubMedArticle
17.
Geerts  WHPineo  GFHeit  JA  et al.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 2004;126 (3) ((suppl)) 338S- 400S
PubMedArticle
18.
Moher  DCook  DJEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  DF Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354 (9193) 1896- 1900
PubMedArticle
19.
Sterne  JBradburn  MJEgger  M Meta-analysis in Stata. Egger  MSmith  GDADSystematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London, England BMJ Publishing Group2001;347- 369
20.
Deeks  JAltman  DGBradburn  MJ Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Altman  DGSystematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London, England BMJ Publishing Group2001;285- 312
21.
Schlag  GPoigenfurst  JGaudernak  T Risk/benefit of heparin-dihydroergotamine thromboembolic prophylaxis. Lancet 1986;2 (8521-8522) 1465Article
22.
 Anticoagulants in acute myocardial infarction: results of a cooperative clinical trial. JAMA 1973;225 (7) 724- 729
PubMedArticle
23.
Wray  RMaurer  BShillingford  J Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in the prevention of calf-vein thrombosis after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1973;288 (16) 815- 817
PubMedArticle
24.
Bath  PMLindenstrom  EBoysen  G  et al.  Tinzaparin in acute ischaemic stroke (TAIST): a randomised aspirin-controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358 (9283) 702- 710
PubMedArticle
25.
Monreal  MRoncales  FJRuiz  J  et al.  Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: a role for low-molecular-weight heparin. Haemostasis 1998;28 (5) 236- 243
PubMed
26.
Bern  MMBothe  A  JrBistrian  BChampagne  CDKeane  MSBlackburn  GL Prophylaxis against central vein thrombosis with low-dose warfarin. Surgery 1986;99 (2) 216- 221
PubMed
27.
Levine  MHirsh  JGent  M  et al.  Double-blind randomised trial of a very-low-dose warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in stage IV breast cancer. Lancet 1994;343 (8902) 886- 889
PubMedArticle
28.
Pitney  WRPussell  BAHarris  MManohar  D The subcutaneous use of heparin in the prevention of venous thrombosis after myocardial infarction. Med J Aust 1974;1 (2) 38- 40
PubMed
29.
Hossman  VLoettgen  HAuel  HHeiss  WD Prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis in acute stroke: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study [abstract]. Haemostasis 1986;16 ((suppl 5)) 54
30.
Bosson  JLLabarere  JSevestre  MA  et al.  Deep vein thrombosis in elderly patients hospitalized in subacute care facilities: a multicenter cross-sectional study of risk factors, prophylaxis, and prevalence. Arch Intern Med 2003;163 (21) 2613- 2618
PubMedArticle
31.
McGarry  LJThompson  D Retrospective database analysis of the prevention of venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparin in acutely ill medical inpatients in community practice. Clin Ther 2004;26 (3) 419- 430
PubMedArticle
32.
Harenberg  JSchomaker  UFlosbach  CW Enoxaparin is superior to unfractionated hepain in the prevention of thromboembolic events in medical inpatients at increased thromboembolic risk [abstract]. Blood 1999;94 ((suppl)) 399a
33.
Zangari  MBarlogie  BAnaissie  E  et al.  Deep vein thrombosis in patients with multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide and chemotherapy: effects of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. Br J Haematol 2004;126 (5) 715- 721
PubMedArticle
34.
Ibarra-Perez  CLau-Cortes  EColmenero-Zubiate  S  et al.  Prevalence and prevention of deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities in high-risk pulmonary patients. Angiology 1988;39 (6) 505- 513
PubMedArticle
35.
Halkin  HGoldberg  JModan  MModan  B Reduction of mortality in general medical in-patients by low-dose heparin prophylaxis. Ann Intern Med 1982;96 (5) 561- 565
PubMedArticle
36.
Hillbom  MErila  TSotaniemi  CW  et al.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke [abstract]. Blood 1999;94 ((suppl 1)) 183a
37.
Hillbom  MErila  TSotaniemi  KTatlisumak  TSarna  SKaste  M Enoxaparin vs heparin for prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in acute ischaemic stroke: a randomized, double-blind study. Acta Neurol Scand 2002;106 (2) 84- 92
PubMedArticle
38.
Cade  JF High risk of the critically ill for venous thromboembolism. Crit Care Med 1982;10 (7) 448- 450
PubMedArticle
39.
Dahan  RHoulbert  DCaulin  C  et al.  Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elderly medical in-patients by a low molecular weight heparin: a randomized double-blind trial. Haemostasis 1986;16 (2) 159- 164
PubMed
40.
Turpie  AGLevine  MNHirsh  J  et al.  Double-blind randomised trial of Org 10172 low-molecular-weight heparinoid in prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in thrombotic stroke. Lancet 1987;1 (8532) 523- 526
PubMedArticle
41.
Prins  MHGelsema  RSing  AKvan Heerde  LRden Ottolander  GJ Prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis with a low-molecular-weight heparin (Kabi 2165/Fragmin) in stroke patients. Haemostasis 1989;19 (5) 245- 250
PubMed
42.
Sandset  PMDahl  TStiris  MRostad  BScheel  BAbildgaard  U A double-blind and randomized placebo-controlled trial of low molecular weight heparin once daily to prevent deep-vein thrombosis in acute ischemic stroke. Semin Thromb Hemost 1990;16 ((suppl)) 25- 33
PubMed
43.
Kay  RWong  KSYu  YL  et al.  Low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 1995;333 (24) 1588- 1593
PubMedArticle
44.
Bergmann  JFCaulin  C Heparin prophylaxis in bedridden patients. Lancet 1996;348 (9021) 205- 206
PubMedArticle
45.
Hommel  MFISS-bis Investigator Group, Ischaemic Stroke Study (FISS-bis) [abstract]. Cerebrovasc Dis 1998;8 ((suppl 4)) 19Article
46.
The Publications Committee for the Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) Investigators, Low molecular weight heparinoid, ORG 10172 (danaparoid), and outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;279 (16) 1265- 1272
PubMedArticle
47.
Samama  MMCohen  ATDarmon  JY  et al. Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study Group, A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med 1999;341 (11) 793- 800
PubMedArticle
48.
Fraisse  FHolzapfel  LCouland  JM  et al. The Association of Non-University Affiliated Intensive Care Specialist Physicians of France, Nadroparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in acute decompensated COPD. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161 (4 pt 1) 1109- 1114
PubMedArticle
49.
Leizorovicz  ACohen  ATTurpie  AGOlsson  CGVaitkus  PTGoldhaber  SZ Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Circulation 2004;110 (7) 874- 879
PubMedArticle
50.
Handley  AJEmerson  PAFleming  PR Heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis after myocardial infarction. Br Med J 1972;2 (5811) 436- 438
PubMedArticle
51.
Handley  AJ Low-dose heparin after myocardial infarction. Lancet 1972;2 (7778) 623- 624
PubMedArticle
52.
Gallus  ASHirsh  JTutle  RJ  et al.  Small subcutaneous doses of heparin in prevention of venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1973;288 (11) 545- 551
PubMedArticle
53.
Warlow  CTerry  GKenmure  ACBeattie  AGOgston  DDouglas  AS A double-blind trial of low doses of subcutaneous heparin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after myocardial infarction. Lancet 1973;2 (7835) 934- 936
PubMedArticle
54.
Emerson  PAMarks  P Preventing thromboembolism after myocardial infarction: effect of low-dose heparin or smoking. Br Med J 1977;1 (6052) 18- 20
PubMedArticle
55.
McCarthy  STTurner  JJRobertson  DHawkey  CJMacey  DJ Low-dose heparin as a prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after acute stroke. Lancet 1977;2 (8042) 800- 801
PubMedArticle
56.
Pitt  AAnderson  STHabersberger  PGRosengarten  DS Low dose heparin in the prevention of deep-vein thromboses in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1980;99 (5) 574- 578
PubMedArticle
57.
Gelmers  HJ Effects of low-dose subcutaneous heparin on the occurrence of deep vein thrombosis in patients with ischemic stroke. Acta Neurol Scand 1980;61 (5) 313- 318
PubMedArticle
58.
Belch  JJLowe  GDWard  AGForbes  CDPrentice  CR Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in medical patients by low-dose heparin. Scott Med J 1981;26 (2) 115- 117
PubMed
59.
McCarthy  STTurner  J Low-dose subcutaneous heparin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli following acute stroke. Age Ageing 1986;15 (2) 84- 88
PubMedArticle
60.
Zawilska  KPsuja  PLewandowski  KWroz  M Low-dose heparin in the prevention of thrombotic complications following acute myocardial infarction. Cor Vasa 1989;31 (3) 179- 185
PubMed
61.
Pambianco  GOrchard  TLandau  P Deep vein thrombosis: prevention in stroke patients during rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76 (4) 324- 330
PubMedArticle
62.
Gardlund  BThe Heparin Prophylaxis Study Group, Randomised, controlled trial of low-dose heparin for prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism in patients with infectious diseases. Lancet 1996;347 (9012) 1357- 1361
PubMedArticle
63.
The International Stroke Trial (IST), A randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19 435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Lancet 1997;349 (9065) 1569- 1581
PubMedArticle
64.
Harenberg  JKallenbach  BMartin  U  et al.  Randomized controlled study of heparin and low molecular weight heparin for prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in medical patients. Thromb Res 1990;59 (3) 639- 650
PubMedArticle
65.
Scala  PJThiollet  MMidavaine  M  et al.  Deep venous thrombosis and left ventricular thrombosis prophylaxis by low molecular weight heparin in acute myocardial infarction. Haemostasis 1990;20 (6) 368- 369
PubMed
66.
Turpie  AGGent  MCote  R  et al.  A low-molecular-weight heparinoid compared with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a randomized, double-blind study. Ann Intern Med 1992;117 (5) 353- 357
PubMedArticle
67.
Dumas  RWoitinas  FKutnowski  M  et al.  A multicentre, double-blind, randomized study to compare the safety and efficacy of once-daily ORG 10172 and twice-daily low-dose heparin in preventing deep-vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Age Ageing 1994;23 (6) 512- 516
PubMedArticle
68.
Bergmann  JFNeuhart  EThe Enoxaparin in Medicine Study Group, A multicenter randomized double-blind study of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in elderly in-patients bedridden for an acute medical illness. Thromb Haemost 1996;76 (4) 529- 534
PubMed
69.
Lechler  ESchramm  WFlosbach  CWThe Prime Study Group, The venous thrombotic risk in non-surgical patients: epidemiological data and efficacy/safety profile of a low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin). Haemostasis 1996;26 ((suppl 2)) 49- 56
PubMed
70.
Kleber  FXWitt  CVogel  GKoppenhagen  KSchomaker  UFlosbach  CW Randomized comparison of enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with heart failure or severe respiratory disease. Am Heart J 2003;145 (4) 614- 621
PubMedArticle
71.
Diener  HCRingelstein  EBvon Kummer  R  et al.  Prophylaxis of thrombotic and embolic events in acute ischemic stroke with the low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin: results of the PROTECT Trial. Stroke 2006;37 (1) 139- 144
PubMedArticle
72.
Cohen  ATDavidson  BLGallus  AS  et al.  Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: randomised placebo controlled trial. BMJ 2006;332 (7537) 325- 329
PubMedArticle
73.
Burleigh  EWang  CFoster  D  et al.  Thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63 (20) ((suppl 6)) S23- S29
PubMedArticle
74.
Mismetti  PLaporte-Simitsidis  STardy  B  et al.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism in internal medicine with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparins: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Thromb Haemost 2000;83 (1) 14- 19
PubMed
Original Investigation
July 23, 2007

Pharmacological Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Medical PatientsA Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Clinical Research Excellence in Therapeutics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Alfred Hospital (Ms L. Wein, Mr Haas, and Drs Shaw and Krum), Baker Heart Research Institute (Dr Shaw), and Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne (Ms S. Wein), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(14):1476-1486. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.14.1476
Abstract

Background  There is uncertainty regarding which pharmacological agents most effectively prevent venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to determine this.

Methods  MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1950, 1966, and 1800, respectively, through June 30, 2006, for randomized controlled trials that involved medical patients comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin or heparinoid (LMWH) with a control, LMWH with UFH, or selective factor Xa inhibitors with a comparator. Study selection, validity assessment, and data abstraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers (L.W. and S.W.). Data synthesis was undertaken by 1 blinded investigator (S.J.H.).

Results  Thirty-six studies were included. Compared with the control, UFH was associated with a reduced risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (risk ratio [RR], 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.42) and pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82), as was LMWH (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70; and RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64, respectively). A UFH dosage of 5000 U 3 times daily was more effective in preventing DVT than a UFH dosage of 5000 U twice daily when compared with the control (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.36; vs RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.96). Neither UFH nor LMWH reduced mortality. When directly compared with UFH, LMWH was associated with a lower risk of DVT (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88) and injection site hematoma (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62), but no difference was seen between the 2 agents in the risk of bleeding or thrombocytopenia.

Conclusions  Both UFH and LMWH reduce venous thromboembolic risk in hospitalized medical patients, but neither agent alters mortality. When directly compared, LMWH is more effective in preventing DVT.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which consists of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major and often unrecognized cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients.19 Approximately 10% of hospital deaths can be attributed to pulmonary emboli.10 It is widely accepted that reliance on the diagnosis and treatment of an established event is an inappropriate way to approach VTE because diagnosis is often difficult and massive PE may be the first clinical manifestation of the disease.11,12 Prevention is therefore of paramount importance.

Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used in surgical patients. However, it is not as widely practiced in the medical setting,1315 even though medical patients represent most hospitalized patients and at least 75% of fatal PEs occur in this group.16 Unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin or heparinoid (LMWH), and selective factor Xa inhibitors are all used for the prevention of VTE. Current International Consensus Statement11 and American College of Chest Physicians17 guidelines recommend the use of UFH or LMWH in medical patients at risk for VTE. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of the various agents available for thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS
STUDY SEARCH

MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1950, 1966, and 1800, respectively, through June 30, 2006. MEDLINEand the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched using the medical subject heading terms heparin, venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. EMBASE was searched using the EMTREE keywords heparin and venous thromboembolism. These databases were also searched using the term factor Xa inhibitor. All searches were restricted to trials that involved humans and were published in English. In addition, the reference lists of all relevant trials were hand searched.

STUDY SELECTION, VALIDITY ASSESSMENT, AND DATA ABSTRACTION

Only prospective randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Studies were eligible if they compared (1) UFH with the control, (2) LMWH with the control, (3) LMWH with UFH, or (4) a selective factor Xa inhibitor with a placebo. Studies were considered appropriate for inclusion only if they involved hospitalized medical patients and reported the occurrence of DVT, PE, and/or mortality after the administration of therapy.

Studies with fewer than 30 patients were excluded. Studies were also excluded if they examined thromboembolism in surgical, trauma, or critical care patients only or if the study authors did not provide a subgroup analysis for medical patients regarding the occurrence of thromboembolism. In addition, trials that studied thromboembolism associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer and trials that involved patients admitted to intensive care units were excluded.

Study selection, validity assessment, and data abstraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers (L.W. and S.W.) in an unblinded standardized manner. Two other investigators (H.K. and J.S.) were consulted whenever the need arose for further discussion about the eligibility of a trial for inclusion in this meta-analysis or about results reported by individual studies. This process was undertaken in accordance with the guidelines of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement.18

OUTCOME MEASURES AND APPLIED DEFINITIONS

We were able to conduct a meta-analysis for a particular outcome if it was investigated in 3 or more trials. DVT, PE, mortality, and total bleeding were analyzed in studies that compared LMWH with the control, UFH with the control, and LMWH with UFH. Results of all studies that compared UFH, LMWH, or factor Xa inhibitor with the control were combined to produce an analysis of prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis for these outcomes. Studies that compared LMWH with the control and LMWH with UFH had also provided further details regarding other outcome measures, which have been analyzed in this investigation: major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and injection site hematoma. In addition, UFH dosages of 5000 U twice daily and 5000 U 3 times daily were analyzed separately by comparison with the control for the outcome of DVT.

The definitions of outcome measures were considered to be those provided by the authors of the various studies with the exception of total bleeding and major bleeding. Intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhages and hemorrhagic transformations were included in the definition of total bleeding and major bleeding episodes. The outcome of total bleeding includes major, minor, and fatal bleeding episodes but not subcutaneous injection site hematomas.

The raw data results reported by the authors of the studies were used in this meta-analysis. Where the required values were not explicitly and unambiguously reported by the authors, the number of participants in the study was assumed to be the number who started treatment for all outcomes analyzed, except for DVT. In the case of DVT, the total number of patients was deemed to be the number who completed the trial as set out in the individual study protocols for that outcome. The reason for this discrepancy is that in some of the trials, several randomized patients did not undergo assessment for DVT. Therefore, the proportion of patients who underwent investigation who were found to have DVT would more closely reflect the true rate of DVT than the proportion of all patients who started treatment.

QUANTITATIVE DATA SYNTHESIS

Formal quantitative data synthesis was undertaken in a blinded manner by 1 investigator (S.J.H.) in consultation with 2 other investigators (L.W. and S.W.). Data analysis was conducted with STATA statistical software, version 8.2 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method and the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects method19,20 of meta-analysis for binary outcomes. The fixed-effects model calculates an average of the outcome statistic from each study, whereas the random-effects model additionally considers the variability among the studies analyzed. Results were presented as estimates of relative risk (RR) for each outcome measure, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), in which relative weights were assigned to each study on the basis of treatment group size and number of observed events.19,20 Heterogeneity χ2 tests were performed in each analysis, and statistical significance was assumed at the .05 level via the use of statistical 2-way z tests. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of each individual trial on the final pooled estimate for each outcome measure. Funnel plots were constructed via RevMan Analyses, version 1.0.5 (the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) to investigate the potential for publication bias.

RESULTS
SEARCH RESULTS

Our search for studies conducted in accordance with the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement18 is summarized in Figure 1. We identified 936 potentially suitable articles. Of these, 54 examined the relevant end points in appropriate patient groups. Nine of these trials2129 were excluded because they did not compare (1) UFH with the control, (2) LMWH with the control, (3) LMWH with UFH, or (4) a selective factor Xa inhibitor with a comparator. Four studies3033 were excluded because they were not randomized controlled trials, and 2 studies34,35 were excluded because of potential biases from the study randomization process. One article36 was excluded because it was an abstract that outlined research later published in another journal.37 One additional study38 was excluded because it was not possible to extract sufficient data from the published article for statistical analysis to be performed (the number of patients in each group who experienced an event and the number of patients randomized to each group were required). The remaining 36 trials9,37,3972 were included in this meta-analysis (Table 1).

STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

Among the 36 trials included in this meta-analysis, 4 different comparisons of therapy were studied. Fourteen trials compared UFH with the control,5063 11 trials compared LMWH with the control,3949 10 compared LMWH with UFH,9,37,6471 and 1 compared fondaparinux sodium with placebo72 (Table 2).

Several different modes of investigation were used to diagnose DVT among the trials. Venography,9,37,4042,4749,66,67,69,70,72 iodine 125 fibrinogen scanning,3941,5060,6568 impedance plethysmography,40,64,66 and ultrasonography9,42,47,49,61,64,71 were all used. Alternatively, in some cases DVT was diagnosed either clinically46,57,64 or at autopsy.37,42,62,70 In 1 study,43 the method used to diagnose reported DVT was not specified.

Methods used to diagnose PE were ventilation and perfusion lung scanning,9,37,40,47,49,57,58,6872 pulmonary angiography,9,37,47,49,6872 spiral computed tomography,47,49,71,72 magnetic resonance imaging,49 and chest radiography.70 In some studies, PE was diagnosed clinically41,50,51,54,56,57 or at autopsy.37,39,47,49,59,62,6870,72 The method used was not specified in some studies,42,45,46,48,53,60,63,67 whereas in others descriptions such as “radiographic evidence” or “radiological evidence” were used.50,51,54

The way in which mortality was reported differed among trials. Although most studies37,39,4144,4649,53,54,6366,68,70,71 stated the number of patients who died during the treatment or trial period, others were less clear in their definition of mortality or provided only data that incorporated deaths both during and outside this period.

Data on total bleeding, major bleeding, and minor bleeding episodes were reported in several different ways across the individual studies. Some trials reported the number of patients who experienced these end points,37,3941,43,4547,50,57,58,62,6572 whereas others described the number of events or episodes observed.9,42,48,49,63 When possible, we used data for the number of patients who experienced the relevant outcomes. Furthermore, in their results sections, some authors did not provide data for the total number of patients who experienced bleeding yet reported subcategories of this outcome separately.9,37,42,43,46,49,66,67,72 When this occurred, we added the patients or episodes into the different subcategories to obtain a combined figure for the purposes of our analysis of total bleeding. Major and minor bleeding episodes were also occasionally reported in terms of subcategories.43,46

QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

Unless otherwise stated, reported figures are discussed in the context of the fixed-effects mode because of no major apparent difference with results obtained from the random-effects model.

UFH VS CONTROL

Pooled results demonstrated reductions in the risk of DVT (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.42) and PE (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82) among those receiving UFH. No mortality difference was seen between the UFH and control groups (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.02). Therapy was associated with an increased risk of total bleeding (RR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.44-3.96) (Figure 2).

A UFH dosage of 5000 U 3 times daily was associated with a greater reduction in the risk of DVT than a UFH dosage of 5000 U twice daily (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.36; and RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.96, respectively). When the random-effects model was used, the decreased risk of DVT associated with a UFH dosage of 5000 U twice daily became statistically nonsignificant (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.10-1.73).

LMWH VS CONTROL

Compared with the control, LMWH was associated with a reduced risk of DVT (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.70) and PE (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64). An increased risk of total bleeding (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.31-1.74), major bleeding (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32-2.78), minor bleeding (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17-1.67), and injection site hematoma (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.06-3.93) was observed with therapy (Figure 3). When the random-effects model was used, the increased risk of major bleeding and injection site hematoma became statistically nonsignificant. No difference in mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.19) or thrombocytopenia (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.69-1.77) was found between the 2 groups.

LMWH VS UFH

Compared with UFH, LMWH was associated with a reduced risk of DVT (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88) and injection site hematoma (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62). No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 agents with respect to PE (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.25-1.34), mortality (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.85-1.59), total bleeding (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.60-1.14), major bleeding (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20), minor bleeding (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34-1.10), or thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05-1.16) (Figure 4).

PROPHYLAXIS VS NO PROPHYLAXIS

Prophylaxis with UFH, LMWH, or fondaparinux was associated with a reduced risk of DVT (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.53) and PE (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.72) and an increased risk of total bleeding (RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.69-2.14). Prophylaxis did not have an effect on mortality (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.02).

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

When 2 trials59,63 were singly removed in turn from the analysis of UFH vs the control for the outcome of PE using the random-effects method, the reduction in risk observed with UFH became statistically nonsignificant. Analysis of the UFH dosage of 5000 U twice daily vs the control for DVT was also influenced by the removal of 2 trials53,60 when singly removed, with the association no longer significant in either the fixed-effects or random-effects method. Furthermore, for LMWH vs the control, removal of 1 study43 made the result for major bleeding significant using the random-effects method, and removal of a different study46 made the outcome for minor bleeding no longer significant when the random-effects method was applied.

PUBLICATION BIAS

Funnel plots showed some asymmetry, indicating the potential for publication bias (Figure 5).

SELECTIVE FACTOR Xa INHIBITORS

The trial that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis found that fondaparinux was effective in the prevention of asymptomatic and symptomatic VTE events, with the frequency of major bleeding being similar for both fondaparinux- and placebo-treated patients.72

COMMENT

This meta-analysis has shown that UFH and LMWH are both associated with a reduced risk of VTE in medical patients, with LMWH being more effective in preventing DVT than UFH when considering trials that directly compared the 2 agents. The UFH dosage of 5000 U 3 times daily was more effective than the UFH dosage of 5000 U twice daily in reducing the risk of DVT.

Despite the observed reduction in VTE events, thromboprophylaxis did not affect mortality. This result may be accounted for by several factors. The patients who participated in the trials were generally unwell, with multiple comorbidities and a high in-hospital mortality rate (up to 8.19% in our analysis). It is therefore likely that a large proportion of patient deaths were attributable to causes other than VTE events. Furthermore, it is likely that many of the DVTs detected by the investigators either did not embolize at all or did not do so during the study period. It is also possible that a considerable proportion of the reported PEs were not fatal events. Although UFH and LMWH were associated with an increased risk of bleeding, it is unlikely that these episodes, many of which were minor, led to an increase in fatalities that would offset the reduction in mortality due to VTE. This theory is substantiated by the minimal reporting of fatal hemorrhagic episodes in the individual trials.

In contrast to our study, a retrospective database analysis73 found that thromboprophylaxis reduces mortality. Several possible explanations exist for this discrepancy between results. Notably, randomization was not undertaken in the database analysis, and although results were adjusted for age, sex, and severity of illness, many other factors that contribute to VTE risk were not taken into account. Furthermore, as acknowledged by the investigators of the database analysis, the results may have been affected by treatment bias. For example, as the authors explained, some patients may not have received prophylaxis because their prognosis was poor and physicians believed it would not provide any benefit. Additionally, unlike in the retrospective study, in many of the trials included in our meta-analysis, patients were routinely screened at an early stage of DVT. Treatment of detected DVTs, when undertaken, would likely have reduced the number of PEs and deaths that occurred, potentially minimizing a difference in mortality between the prophylaxis and control groups.

A limitation of our analysis is that the patient population is not homogeneous. Participants in the trials had a diverse range of medical conditions and risk factors for VTE. However, although not ideal, we believe it acceptable to pool results from the various trials given the natural diversity of patients in a general medical ward. One must nevertheless be wary of the heterogeneity of the patient group analyzed when applying the results of this analysis to particular patient groups in the clinical setting. A further limitation of this study is that the type of LMWH used was not consistent among the trials. Any potential differences in efficacy or safety among these agents would not be reflected in the pooled analyses.

A meta-analysis74 published in 2000 investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents used for VTE prophylaxis in medical patients. The authors of that meta-analysis stated that their study lacked sufficient power to detect a difference in efficacy between LMWH and UFH. In contrast to our meta-analysis, the 2000 study found that LMWH reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with UFH. The inconsistency of definitions of major bleeding in the individual trials analyzed in both meta-analyses could potentially contribute to the contrasting results observed between the 2 analyses. Furthermore, our study differs from the previous meta-analysis because it considers patients with acute myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, who represent an important cohort of medical patients, and includes several large trials that have been completed since the 2000 publication.

Our meta-analysis shows that UFH and LMWH reduce the risk of VTE, with LMWH being more effective in preventing DVT when the 2 agents are directly compared. Our results indicate that if UFH is to be used, a dose of 5000 U 3 times daily is preferable to 5000 U twice daily. We believe that routine prophylactic anticoagulation has an important place in the medical setting. Although such therapy may not necessarily decrease mortality among hospitalized medical patients, it will reduce the occurrence of DVT and PE and therefore the burden of illness currently caused by these events.

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Henry Krum, MBBS, PhD, FRACP, National Health and Medical Research Council Centre of Clinical Research Excellence in Therapeutics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Third Floor, Burnet Tower, Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct, 89 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia (henry.krum@med.monash.edu.au).

Accepted for Publication: February 2, 2007.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: L. Wein, S. Wein, Haas, Shaw, and Krum. Acquisition of data: L. Wein and S. Wein. Analysis and interpretation of data: L. Wein, S. Wein, Haas, Shaw, and Krum. Drafting of the manuscript: L. Wein, S. Wein, Haas, Shaw, and Krum. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: L. Wein, S. Wein, Haas, Shaw, and Krum. Statistical analysis: L. Wein, S. Wein, and Haas. Administrative, technical, and material support: Haas. Study supervision: Haas, Shaw, and Krum.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by a Centre of Clinical Research Excellence grant from the National Health and Medical Council of Australia.

References
1.
Anderson  FA  JrWheeler  HBGoldberg  RJ  et al.  A population-based perspective of the hospital incidence and case-fatality rates of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: the Worcester DVT Study. Arch Intern Med 1991;151 (5) 933- 938
PubMedArticle
2.
Dalen  JE Pulmonary embolism: what have we learned since Virchow? natural history, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. Chest 2002;122 (4) 1440- 1456
PubMedArticle
3.
Goldhaber  SZVisani  LDe Rosa  M Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). Lancet 1999;353 (9162) 1386- 1389
PubMedArticle
4.
Oger  EEPI-GETBP Study Group; Groupe d'Etude de la Thrombose de Bretagne Occidentale, Incidence of venous thromboembolism: a community-based study in Western France. Thromb Haemost 2000;83 (5) 657- 660
PubMed
5.
Samama  MM An epidemiologic study of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis in medical outpatients: the Sirius study. Arch Intern Med 2000;160 (22) 3415- 3420
PubMedArticle
6.
Silverstein  MDHeit  JAMohr  DNPetterson  TMO'Fallon  WMMelton  LJ  III Trends in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a 25-year population-based study. Arch Intern Med 1998;158 (6) 585- 593
PubMedArticle
7.
Goldhaber  SZElliott  CG Acute pulmonary embolism, part I: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. Circulation 2003;108 (22) 2726- 2729
PubMedArticle
8.
Perrier  A Noninvasive diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Haematologica 1997;82 (3) 328- 331
PubMed
9.
Harenberg  JRoebruck  PHeene  DL Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin and the prevention of thromboembolism in medical inpatients: the Heparin Study in Internal Medicine Group. Haemostasis 1996;26 (3) 127- 139
PubMed
10.
Sandler  DAMartin  JF Autopsy proven pulmonary embolism in hospital patients: are we detecting enough deep vein thrombosis? J R Soc Med 1989;82 (4) 203- 205
PubMed
11.
Cardiovascular Disease Education and Research Trust; Cyprus Cardiovascular Disease Educational and Research Trust; European Venous Forum; International Surgical Thrombosis Forum; International Union of Angiology; Union Internationale de Phlebologie, Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism: International Consensus Statement (guidelines according to scientific evidence). Int Angiol 2006;25 (2) 101- 161
PubMed
12.
Stein  PDHenry  JW Prevalence of acute pulmonary embolism among patients in a general hospital and at autopsy. Chest 1995;108 (4) 978- 981
PubMedArticle
13.
Goldhaber  SZTapson  VF A prospective registry of 5,451 patients with ultrasound-confirmed deep vein thrombosis. Am J Cardiol 2004;93 (2) 259- 262
PubMedArticle
14.
Pavanello  RFroehlich  JBTapson  V  et al.  Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis practices in acutely ill medical patients with heart failure (NYHA class III or IV): findings from IMPROVE [abstract]. Blood 2005;1061869
15.
Goldhaber  SZTurpie  AG Prevention of venous thromboembolism among hospitalized medical patients. Circulation 2005;111 (1) e1- e3
PubMedArticle
16.
Cohen  AT Discoveries in thrombosis care for medical patients. Semin Thromb Hemost 2002;28 ((suppl 3)) 13- 17
PubMedArticle
17.
Geerts  WHPineo  GFHeit  JA  et al.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 2004;126 (3) ((suppl)) 338S- 400S
PubMedArticle
18.
Moher  DCook  DJEastwood  SOlkin  IRennie  DStroup  DF Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354 (9193) 1896- 1900
PubMedArticle
19.
Sterne  JBradburn  MJEgger  M Meta-analysis in Stata. Egger  MSmith  GDADSystematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London, England BMJ Publishing Group2001;347- 369
20.
Deeks  JAltman  DGBradburn  MJ Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Altman  DGSystematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London, England BMJ Publishing Group2001;285- 312
21.
Schlag  GPoigenfurst  JGaudernak  T Risk/benefit of heparin-dihydroergotamine thromboembolic prophylaxis. Lancet 1986;2 (8521-8522) 1465Article
22.
 Anticoagulants in acute myocardial infarction: results of a cooperative clinical trial. JAMA 1973;225 (7) 724- 729
PubMedArticle
23.
Wray  RMaurer  BShillingford  J Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in the prevention of calf-vein thrombosis after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1973;288 (16) 815- 817
PubMedArticle
24.
Bath  PMLindenstrom  EBoysen  G  et al.  Tinzaparin in acute ischaemic stroke (TAIST): a randomised aspirin-controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358 (9283) 702- 710
PubMedArticle
25.
Monreal  MRoncales  FJRuiz  J  et al.  Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: a role for low-molecular-weight heparin. Haemostasis 1998;28 (5) 236- 243
PubMed
26.
Bern  MMBothe  A  JrBistrian  BChampagne  CDKeane  MSBlackburn  GL Prophylaxis against central vein thrombosis with low-dose warfarin. Surgery 1986;99 (2) 216- 221
PubMed
27.
Levine  MHirsh  JGent  M  et al.  Double-blind randomised trial of a very-low-dose warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in stage IV breast cancer. Lancet 1994;343 (8902) 886- 889
PubMedArticle
28.
Pitney  WRPussell  BAHarris  MManohar  D The subcutaneous use of heparin in the prevention of venous thrombosis after myocardial infarction. Med J Aust 1974;1 (2) 38- 40
PubMed
29.
Hossman  VLoettgen  HAuel  HHeiss  WD Prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis in acute stroke: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study [abstract]. Haemostasis 1986;16 ((suppl 5)) 54
30.
Bosson  JLLabarere  JSevestre  MA  et al.  Deep vein thrombosis in elderly patients hospitalized in subacute care facilities: a multicenter cross-sectional study of risk factors, prophylaxis, and prevalence. Arch Intern Med 2003;163 (21) 2613- 2618
PubMedArticle
31.
McGarry  LJThompson  D Retrospective database analysis of the prevention of venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparin in acutely ill medical inpatients in community practice. Clin Ther 2004;26 (3) 419- 430
PubMedArticle
32.
Harenberg  JSchomaker  UFlosbach  CW Enoxaparin is superior to unfractionated hepain in the prevention of thromboembolic events in medical inpatients at increased thromboembolic risk [abstract]. Blood 1999;94 ((suppl)) 399a
33.
Zangari  MBarlogie  BAnaissie  E  et al.  Deep vein thrombosis in patients with multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide and chemotherapy: effects of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. Br J Haematol 2004;126 (5) 715- 721
PubMedArticle
34.
Ibarra-Perez  CLau-Cortes  EColmenero-Zubiate  S  et al.  Prevalence and prevention of deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities in high-risk pulmonary patients. Angiology 1988;39 (6) 505- 513
PubMedArticle
35.
Halkin  HGoldberg  JModan  MModan  B Reduction of mortality in general medical in-patients by low-dose heparin prophylaxis. Ann Intern Med 1982;96 (5) 561- 565
PubMedArticle
36.
Hillbom  MErila  TSotaniemi  CW  et al.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of the low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke [abstract]. Blood 1999;94 ((suppl 1)) 183a
37.
Hillbom  MErila  TSotaniemi  KTatlisumak  TSarna  SKaste  M Enoxaparin vs heparin for prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in acute ischaemic stroke: a randomized, double-blind study. Acta Neurol Scand 2002;106 (2) 84- 92
PubMedArticle
38.
Cade  JF High risk of the critically ill for venous thromboembolism. Crit Care Med 1982;10 (7) 448- 450
PubMedArticle
39.
Dahan  RHoulbert  DCaulin  C  et al.  Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elderly medical in-patients by a low molecular weight heparin: a randomized double-blind trial. Haemostasis 1986;16 (2) 159- 164
PubMed
40.
Turpie  AGLevine  MNHirsh  J  et al.  Double-blind randomised trial of Org 10172 low-molecular-weight heparinoid in prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in thrombotic stroke. Lancet 1987;1 (8532) 523- 526
PubMedArticle
41.
Prins  MHGelsema  RSing  AKvan Heerde  LRden Ottolander  GJ Prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis with a low-molecular-weight heparin (Kabi 2165/Fragmin) in stroke patients. Haemostasis 1989;19 (5) 245- 250
PubMed
42.
Sandset  PMDahl  TStiris  MRostad  BScheel  BAbildgaard  U A double-blind and randomized placebo-controlled trial of low molecular weight heparin once daily to prevent deep-vein thrombosis in acute ischemic stroke. Semin Thromb Hemost 1990;16 ((suppl)) 25- 33
PubMed
43.
Kay  RWong  KSYu  YL  et al.  Low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 1995;333 (24) 1588- 1593
PubMedArticle
44.
Bergmann  JFCaulin  C Heparin prophylaxis in bedridden patients. Lancet 1996;348 (9021) 205- 206
PubMedArticle
45.
Hommel  MFISS-bis Investigator Group, Ischaemic Stroke Study (FISS-bis) [abstract]. Cerebrovasc Dis 1998;8 ((suppl 4)) 19Article
46.
The Publications Committee for the Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) Investigators, Low molecular weight heparinoid, ORG 10172 (danaparoid), and outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;279 (16) 1265- 1272
PubMedArticle
47.
Samama  MMCohen  ATDarmon  JY  et al. Prophylaxis in Medical Patients with Enoxaparin Study Group, A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med 1999;341 (11) 793- 800
PubMedArticle
48.
Fraisse  FHolzapfel  LCouland  JM  et al. The Association of Non-University Affiliated Intensive Care Specialist Physicians of France, Nadroparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in acute decompensated COPD. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161 (4 pt 1) 1109- 1114
PubMedArticle
49.
Leizorovicz  ACohen  ATTurpie  AGOlsson  CGVaitkus  PTGoldhaber  SZ Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of dalteparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Circulation 2004;110 (7) 874- 879
PubMedArticle
50.
Handley  AJEmerson  PAFleming  PR Heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis after myocardial infarction. Br Med J 1972;2 (5811) 436- 438
PubMedArticle
51.
Handley  AJ Low-dose heparin after myocardial infarction. Lancet 1972;2 (7778) 623- 624
PubMedArticle
52.
Gallus  ASHirsh  JTutle  RJ  et al.  Small subcutaneous doses of heparin in prevention of venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1973;288 (11) 545- 551
PubMedArticle
53.
Warlow  CTerry  GKenmure  ACBeattie  AGOgston  DDouglas  AS A double-blind trial of low doses of subcutaneous heparin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after myocardial infarction. Lancet 1973;2 (7835) 934- 936
PubMedArticle
54.
Emerson  PAMarks  P Preventing thromboembolism after myocardial infarction: effect of low-dose heparin or smoking. Br Med J 1977;1 (6052) 18- 20
PubMedArticle
55.
McCarthy  STTurner  JJRobertson  DHawkey  CJMacey  DJ Low-dose heparin as a prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after acute stroke. Lancet 1977;2 (8042) 800- 801
PubMedArticle
56.
Pitt  AAnderson  STHabersberger  PGRosengarten  DS Low dose heparin in the prevention of deep-vein thromboses in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1980;99 (5) 574- 578
PubMedArticle
57.
Gelmers  HJ Effects of low-dose subcutaneous heparin on the occurrence of deep vein thrombosis in patients with ischemic stroke. Acta Neurol Scand 1980;61 (5) 313- 318
PubMedArticle
58.
Belch  JJLowe  GDWard  AGForbes  CDPrentice  CR Prevention of deep vein thrombosis in medical patients by low-dose heparin. Scott Med J 1981;26 (2) 115- 117
PubMed
59.
McCarthy  STTurner  J Low-dose subcutaneous heparin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli following acute stroke. Age Ageing 1986;15 (2) 84- 88
PubMedArticle
60.
Zawilska  KPsuja  PLewandowski  KWroz  M Low-dose heparin in the prevention of thrombotic complications following acute myocardial infarction. Cor Vasa 1989;31 (3) 179- 185
PubMed
61.
Pambianco  GOrchard  TLandau  P Deep vein thrombosis: prevention in stroke patients during rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76 (4) 324- 330
PubMedArticle
62.
Gardlund  BThe Heparin Prophylaxis Study Group, Randomised, controlled trial of low-dose heparin for prevention of fatal pulmonary embolism in patients with infectious diseases. Lancet 1996;347 (9012) 1357- 1361
PubMedArticle
63.
The International Stroke Trial (IST), A randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19 435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Lancet 1997;349 (9065) 1569- 1581
PubMedArticle
64.
Harenberg  JKallenbach  BMartin  U  et al.  Randomized controlled study of heparin and low molecular weight heparin for prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in medical patients. Thromb Res 1990;59 (3) 639- 650
PubMedArticle
65.
Scala  PJThiollet  MMidavaine  M  et al.  Deep venous thrombosis and left ventricular thrombosis prophylaxis by low molecular weight heparin in acute myocardial infarction. Haemostasis 1990;20 (6) 368- 369
PubMed
66.
Turpie  AGGent  MCote  R  et al.  A low-molecular-weight heparinoid compared with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a randomized, double-blind study. Ann Intern Med 1992;117 (5) 353- 357
PubMedArticle
67.
Dumas  RWoitinas  FKutnowski  M  et al.  A multicentre, double-blind, randomized study to compare the safety and efficacy of once-daily ORG 10172 and twice-daily low-dose heparin in preventing deep-vein thrombosis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Age Ageing 1994;23 (6) 512- 516
PubMedArticle
68.
Bergmann  JFNeuhart  EThe Enoxaparin in Medicine Study Group, A multicenter randomized double-blind study of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in elderly in-patients bedridden for an acute medical illness. Thromb Haemost 1996;76 (4) 529- 534
PubMed
69.
Lechler  ESchramm  WFlosbach  CWThe Prime Study Group, The venous thrombotic risk in non-surgical patients: epidemiological data and efficacy/safety profile of a low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin). Haemostasis 1996;26 ((suppl 2)) 49- 56
PubMed
70.
Kleber  FXWitt  CVogel  GKoppenhagen  KSchomaker  UFlosbach  CW Randomized comparison of enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with heart failure or severe respiratory disease. Am Heart J 2003;145 (4) 614- 621
PubMedArticle
71.
Diener  HCRingelstein  EBvon Kummer  R  et al.  Prophylaxis of thrombotic and embolic events in acute ischemic stroke with the low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin: results of the PROTECT Trial. Stroke 2006;37 (1) 139- 144
PubMedArticle
72.
Cohen  ATDavidson  BLGallus  AS  et al.  Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in older acute medical patients: randomised placebo controlled trial. BMJ 2006;332 (7537) 325- 329
PubMedArticle
73.
Burleigh  EWang  CFoster  D  et al.  Thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63 (20) ((suppl 6)) S23- S29
PubMedArticle
74.
Mismetti  PLaporte-Simitsidis  STardy  B  et al.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism in internal medicine with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparins: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Thromb Haemost 2000;83 (1) 14- 19
PubMed
×