PO-43 Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in central venous catheter antithrombotic prophylaxis: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

2007 ◽  
Vol 120 ◽  
pp. S158
Author(s):  
D. Tassinari ◽  
E. Scarpi ◽  
S. Rupoli
2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9010-9010 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Tassinari ◽  
E. Scarpi ◽  
S. Rupoli ◽  
P. Leoni

9010 Background: To assess the role of LMWH in antithrombotic prophylaxis in cancer patients with a central venous catheter. Methods: A systematic review of literature in the MEDLINE and EMBASE data bases from 1966 to October 2006, using “anticoagulants/*administration & dosage” [MeSH term], “cancer patient” [MeSH term], “catheterization, central venous/*adverse effect” [MeSH term], “catheters, indwelling/adverse effects” “central venous catheter” [MeSH term], “dalteparin/*administration and dosage” [MeSH term], “enoxaparin/*administration and dosage” [MeSH term], “low molecular weight heparin/*administration and dosage” [MeSH term], “nadroparin/*administration and dosage” [MeSH term], “neoplasm/drug therapy” [MeSH term], “reviparin/*administration and dosage” [MeSH term], “venous thrombosis/*etiology/*prevention & control/radiography” [MeSH term], a search was performed independently by two authors (DT and ES). All the randomized phase III trials comparing LMWH and placebo were considered eligible and included into the analysis. The risk reduction (RR) of upper limb venous thrombosis (ULVT) was the primary outcome of the analysis. Heterogeneity between the trials was analysed using the Mantel-Haenszel test, and the outcome analysis was performed using a random effects model and an alpha error lower than 5%. Results: 5 trials met the selection criteria and were included into the analysis. The outcome of 1,367 patients (793 treated with LMWE and 574 treated with placebo) was compared in the pooled analysis. A significant heterogeneity was documented between the trials (p=0.005), while no heterogeneity was observed when a trial with a low quality in the presented data was excluded from the analysis (p=0.777). No significant differences in RR were observed both when all the trials were included into the analysis (RR=−2.4%, p=0.456) and when we excluded a trial for the low quality of presented data (RR=0.2%, p=0.896). Conclusion: Antithrombotic prophylaxis with LMWH does not reduce the risk of ULVT in oncologic patients with central venous catheter, and its routine use seems to be not-recommended in clinical practice. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jawed Fareed ◽  
Walter Jeske ◽  
Daniel Fareed ◽  
Melaine Clark ◽  
Rakesh Wahi ◽  
...  

Low molecular weight heparins are replacing unfractionated heparin in a number of clinical indications because of their improved subcutaneous bioavailability and more predictable antithrombotic response. Clinical trials have demonstrated that low molecular weight heparins are at least as safe and effective as unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism, and unfractionated heparin and warfarin for primary and secondary thromboprophylaxis. The mechanism behind the antithrombotic action of low molecular weight heparins is not fully understood but is likely to involve inhibition of coagulation factors Xa and IIa (thrombin), release of tissue-factor-pathway inhibitor, and inhibition of thrombin activatable fibrinolytic inhibitor. Different low molecular weight heparins have been shown to have various effects on coagulation parameters. Seven low molecular weight heparins are currently marketed worldwide, each demonstrated distinct chemical entities with unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Each low molecular weight heparin is approved for specific indications based on the available efficacy and safety data for that product. The relative efficacy and safety of the low molecular weight heparins are unclear because there have been very few direct comparisons in randomized clinical trials. While recommending low molecular weight heparins for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism, clinical guidelines have not specified individual agents. National and international organizations recognize that low molecular weight heparins are distinct entities and that they should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice. Each low molecular weight heparin should be used at the recommended dose when efficacy and safety data exist for the condition being treated. When these data are not available, the dosing and administration of low molecular weight heparins must be adapted from existing data and recommendations.


1999 ◽  
Vol 82 (08) ◽  
pp. 947-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Hettiarachchi ◽  
Susanne Smorenburg ◽  
Jeffrey Ginsberg ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Martin Prins ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe influence of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and other anticoagulants on the spread of cancer has been reported since the early 1960s.1 However, clinical studies investigating the use of heparins in cancer patients have not produced consistent results.2 Intravenous, adjusted-dose UFH for 5 to 10 days has been the standard initial treatment for venous thrombosis. More recently, subcutaneous, fixed-dose, low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), which are fractions of the parent compound, have been shown to be safe and effective alternatives to UFH in the initial treatment for venous thromboembolism.3-5 In one of our randomized clinical trials comparing LMWH and UFH in the initial treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), we observed an unexpected difference in 6-month mortality among cancer patients in favor of LMWH, which could not be attributed to a difference in the incidence of thrombotic or bleeding complications.6 A similar observation in favor of LMWH was reported in a subsequent study and in a meta-analysis of trials.7,8 The number of cancer patients included in these studies was small, and adjustment of the observed effect for the baseline characteristics of the cancer patients was not possible. However, these findings suggested an inhibitory effect of LMWH on tumor growth or metastasis, which is less apparent or absent for UFH, resulting in a beneficial effect on the survival of cancer patients. This hypothesis is supported by the observations, in experimental studies, that LMWH and low molecular weight heparan sulfate, in comparison to UFH, effectively suppressed angiogenesis, a process necessary for tumor growth and metastasis.9,10 On the other hand, animal studies that investigated the effect of chemically-modified heparins on the spread of cancer did not detect a superior anti-tumor effect of LMWH compared to UFH; both were found to inhibit metastasis.11,12 To date, the effect of LMWH on cancer survival in humans has not been investigated as a primary objective. If a consistent and beneficial effect of LMWH on mortality is indeed present, such a study would be warranted.We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomized clinical trials where LMWH was compared with UFH in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) to estimate the crude treatment effect of LMWH on mortality in cancer patients compared to UFH. Subsequently, we adjusted this treatment effect for age, gender, and primary malignancy site by reanalyzing data from three of those trials.3-5 This effect was further adjusted for other prognostic factors, including cancer histology, tumor stage, presence of metastases, duration of cancer, and concomitant use of cancer treatment, by analyzing individual patient data from the largest randomized trial.5


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document