Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin vs Unfractionated Heparin for Perioperative Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Venous Thromboembolism | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Kakkar  VVHowe  CTNicolaides  ANRenney  JTClarke  MB Deep vein thrombosis of the leg: is there a “high risk” group?  Am J Surg 1970;120 (4) 527- 530PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Gallus  AS Prevention of post-operative deep leg vein thrombosis in patients with cancer.  Thromb Haemost 1997;78 (1) 126- 132PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Rahr  HBSorensen  JV Venous thromboembolism and cancer.  Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 1992;3 (4) 451- 460PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Levitan  NDowlati  ARemick  SC  et al.  Rates of initial and recurrent thromboembolic disease among patients with malignancy versus those without malignancy: risk analysis using Medicare claims data.  Medicine (Baltimore) 1999;78 (5) 285- 291PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Sørensen  HTMellemkjaer  LOlsen  JHBaron  JA Prognosis of cancers associated with venous thromboembolism.  N Engl J Med 2000;343 (25) 1846- 1850PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Flordal  PABerggvist  DBurmark  USLjungstrom  KGTorngren  SFragmin Multicentre Study Group, Risk factors for major thromboembolism and bleeding tendency after elective general surgical operations.  Eur J Surg 1996;162 (10) 783- 789PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
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- 400SPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Borly  LWille-Jorgensen  PRasmussen  MS Systematic review of thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery: an update.  Colorectal Dis 2005;7 (2) 122- 127PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Mismetti  PLaporte  SDarmon  JYBuchmuller  ADecousus  H Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery.  Br J Surg 2001;88 (7) 913- 930PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Wong  SSWilczynski  NLHaynes  RB Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE.  J Med Libr Assoc 2006;94 (4) 451- 455PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Sterne  JACEgger  MDavey Smith  G Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other biases. Tumlin  JAEgger  MDavey  Smith GAltman  DG Systematic Reviews in Health Care Meta-analysis in Context. BMJ Books London, England2001;189- 210Google Scholar
12.
Higgins  JPTThompson  SGDeeks  JJAltman  DG Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis.  BMJ 2003;327 (7414) 557- 560PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Onarheim  HLund  THeimdal  AArnesjo  B A low molecular weight heparin (KABI 2165) for prophylaxis of postoperative deep venous thrombosis.  Acta Chir Scand 1986;152593- 596PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Baykal  CAl  ADemirtas  EAyhan  A Comparison of enoxaparin and standard heparin in gynaecologic oncologic surgery: a randomised prospective double-blind clinical study.  Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2001;22 (2) 127- 130PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Boncinelli  SMarsili  MLorenzi  P  et al.  Haemostatic molecular markers in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer and submitted to prophylaxis with unfractioned or low molecular weight heparin.  Minerva Anestesiol 2001;67 (10) 693- 703PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Dahan  MBoneu  BRenella  J  et al.  Prevention of deep venous thromboses in cancer thoracic surgery with a low-molecular-weight heparin, Fraxiparine: a comparative randomized trial. Bounameaux  HSamama  Mten Cate  JW Fraxiparine Second International Symposium: Recent Pharmacological and Clinical Data. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc1990;27- 31Google Scholar
17.
Enoxacan Study Group, Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elective cancer surgery: a double-blind randomized multicentre trial with venographic assessment.  Br J Surg 1997;84 (8) 1099- 1103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Fricker  JPVergnes  YSchach  R  et al.  Low dose heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (Kabi 2165, Fragmin) in the prophylaxis of thromboembolic complications of abdominal oncological surgery.  Eur J Clin Invest 1988;18 (6) 561- 567PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Gallus  ACade  JOckelford  P  et al.  Orgaran (Org-10172) or heparin for preventing venous thrombosis after elective surgery for malignant disease: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre comparison.  Thromb Haemost 1993;70 (4) 562- 567PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Godwin  JEComp  PDavidson  BRossi  M Comparison of the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous rd heparin vs subcutaneous unfractionated heparin for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic-surgery for cancer [abstract].  Thromb Haemost 1993;69 (6) 647Google Scholar
21.
Heilmann  LTempelhoff  GFVKirkpatrick  CSchneider  DMHommel  GPollow  K Comparison of unfractionated versus low molecular weight heparin for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis during breast and pelvic cancer surgery: efficacy, safety, and follow-up.  Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 1998;4 (4) 268- 273Google ScholarCrossref
22.
von Tempelhoff  GFDietrich  MNiemann  FSchneider  DHommel  GHeilmann  L Blood coagulation and thrombosis in patients with ovarian malignancy.  Thromb Haemost 1997;77 (3) 456- 461PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
von Tempelhoff  GFHarenberg  JNiemann  FHommel  GKirkpatrick  CJHeilmann  L Effect of low molecular weight heparin (Certoparin) versus unfractionated heparin on cancer survival following breast and pelvic cancer surgery: a prospective randomized double-blind trial.  Int J Oncol 2000;16 (4) 815- 824PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Bergqvist  DBurmark  USFrisell  J  et al.  Thromboprophylactic effect of low molecular weight heparin started in the evening before elective general abdominal surgery: a comparison with low-dose heparin.  Semin Thromb Hemost 1990;16 ((suppl)) 19- 24PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
European Fraxiparin Study (EFS) Group, Comparison of a low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.  Br J Surg 1988;75 (11) 1058- 1063PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
McLeod  RSGeerts  WHSniderman  KW  et al.  Subcutaneous heparin versus low-molecular-weight heparin as thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: results of the Canadian Colorectal DVT Prophylaxis Trial: a randomized, double-blind trial.  Ann Surg 2001;233 (3) 438- 444PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Bergqvist  DBurmark  USFrisell  J  et al.  Prospective double-blind comparison between Fragmin and conventional low-dose heparin: thromboprophylactic effect and bleeding complications.  Haemostasis 1986;16 ((suppl 2)) 11- 18PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Bergqvist  DMatzsch  TBurmark  US  et al.  Low molecular weight heparin given the evening before surgery compared with conventional low-dose heparin in prevention of thrombosis [published correction appears in Br J Surg. 1988;75(11):1077].  Br J Surg 1988;75 (9) 888- 891PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Boneu  B An international multicentre study: Clivarin (R) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing general surgery: report of the International Clivarin (R) Assessment Group.  Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 1993;4 ((suppl 1)) S21- S22PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Borstad  EUrdal  KHandeland  GAbildgaard  U Comparison of low molecular weight heparin vs. unfractionated heparin in gynecological surgery.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1988;67 (2) 99- 103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Borstad  EUrdal  KHandeland  GAbildgaard  U Comparison of low molecular weight heparin vs unfractionated heparin in gynecological surgery, II: reduced dose of low molecular weight heparin.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992;71 (6) 471- 475PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Kakkar  VVMurray  WJ Efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (CY216) in preventing postoperative venous thrombo-embolism: a co-operative study.  Br J Surg 1985;72 (10) 786- 791PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Kakkar  VVStringer  MDHedges  AR  et al.  Fixed combinations of low-molecular weight or unfractionated heparin plus dihydroergotamine in the prevention of postoperative deep vein thrombosis.  Am J Surg 1989;157 (4) 413- 418PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Liezorovicz  APicolet  HPeyrieux  JCBoissel  JPH.B.P.M. Research Group, Prevention of perioperative deep vein thrombosis in general surgery: a multicentre double blind study comparing two doses of Logiparin and standard heparin.  Br J Surg 1991;78 (4) 412- 416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Limmer  JEllbruck  DMuller  H  et al.  Prospective randomized clinical study in general surgery comparing a new low molecular weight heparin with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of thrombosis.  Clin Investig 1994;72 (11) 913- 919PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Macdonald  RLAmidei  CBaron  J  et al.  Randomized, pilot study of intermittent pneumatic compression devices plus dalteparin versus intermittent pneumatic compression devices plus heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing craniotomy.  Surg Neurol 2003;59 (5) 363- 372PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Samama  MBernard  PBonnardot  JPCombe-Tamzali  SLanson  YTissot  E Low molecular weight heparin compared with unfractionated heparin in prevention of postoperative thrombosis.  Br J Surg 1988;75 (2) 128- 131PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Ward  BPradhan  S Comparison of low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin) with sodium heparin for prophylaxis against postoperative thrombosis in women undergoing major gynaecological surgery.  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;38 (1) 91- 92PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Oxman  AGuyatt  G When to believe a subgroup analysis. Guyatt  GRennie  D Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. AMA Press Chicago, IL2002;553- 565Google Scholar
40.
Song  FAltman  DGGlenny  AMDeeks  JJ Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.  BMJ 2003;326 (7387) 472PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Gondret  RDominici  LAngelard  B  et al.  Safety of preoperative enoxaparin in head and neck cancer surgery.  Head Neck 1995;17 (1) 1- 6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Einstein  MHPritts  EAHartenbach  EM Venous thromboembolism prevention in gynecologic cancer surgery: a systematic review.  Gynecol Oncol 2007;105 (3) 813- 819PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Martel  NLee  JWells  PS Risk for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis: a meta-analysis.  Blood 2005;106 (8) 2710- 2715PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Morris  TACastrejon  SDevendra  GGamst  AC No difference in risk for thrombocytopenia during treatment of pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis with either low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin: a metaanalysis.  Chest 2007;132 (4) 1131- 1139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Akl  EAvan Doormaal  FFBarba  M  et al.  Parenteral anticoagulation for prolonging survival in patients with cancer who have no other indication for anticoagulation.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (3) CD006652PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Akl  EAKamath  GKim  SY  et al.  Oral anticoagulation for prolonging survival in patients with cancer.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (2) CD006466PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Andtbacka  RHBabiera  GSingletary  SE  et al.  Incidence and prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery and treated according to clinical pathways.  Ann Surg 2006;243 (1) 96- 101PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Review
June 23, 2008

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin vs Unfractionated Heparin for Perioperative Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo (Dr Akl); Department of Epidemiology, Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, Rome (Drs Terrenato, Barba, Sperati, Muti, and Schünemann); Department of Veterans Affairs, Perry Point, Maryland (Dr Sempos); and Department of Medicine (Dr Cook) and CLARITY Research Group, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Drs Cook and Schünemann), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1261-1269. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.12.1261
Abstract

Background  The relative benefits and harms of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) are required for judgments regarding the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. We systematically reviewed the literature to quantify these effects.

Methods  The comprehensive searches included (1) an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials); (2) a hand search of relevant conference proceedings; (3) a reference check of included trials; and (4) use of the PubMed “Related Articles” feature. Outcomes of interest included mortality, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, bleeding complications, and thrombocytopenia.

Results  Of 3986 identified citations, we included 14 randomized clinical trials in the meta-analysis (all using preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation). The overall methodological quality was moderate. The meta-analysis showed no differences in mortality in patients receiving LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk [RR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.28) or in clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.23-2.28). In a post hoc analysis including all studies assessing deep venous thrombosis, irrespective of the diagnostic strategy used, LMWH was superior to UFH (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94). There were no differences in rates of pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.22-1.64), minor bleeding (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.47-1.66), or major bleeding (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.51-1.77).

Conclusions  We found no differences in mortality in patients with cancer receiving perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH vs UFH. Further trials are needed to more carefully evaluate the benefits and harms of different heparin thromboprophylaxis strategies in this population.

×