• J Hosp Med · May 2009

    Meta Analysis

    How complete is the evidence for thromboembolism prophylaxis in general medicine patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    • Gregory M Bump, Madhavi Dandu, Samuel R Kaufman, Kaveh G Shojania, and Scott A Flanders.
    • Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-2582, USA. bumpgm@upmc.edu
    • J Hosp Med. 2009 May 1;4(5):289-97.

    ObjectivesGuidelines recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis for hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thromboembolism. Despite recommendations, multiple studies demonstrate underutilization. Factors contributing to underutilization include uncertainty that prophylaxis reduces clinically relevant events, as well as questions about the best form of prophylaxis. We sought to determine whether prophylaxis decreases clinically significant events and to answer whether unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is either more effective or safer.Data SourcesThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched through June 2008. Relevant bibliographies and conference proceedings were reviewed and LMWH manufacturers were contacted.Study SelectionRandomized trials comparing UFH or LMWH to control, as well as head-to-head comparisons of UFH to LMWH in general medicine patients.Data Extraction And AnalysisEnd points of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), proximal or symptomatic DVT, pulmonary embolism, mortality, bleeding, and thrombocytopenia were extracted from individual trials. Pooled relative risks were calculated using random effects modeling.ResultsWe identified 8 trials comparing prophylaxis to control, and 6 trials comparing UFH to LMWH. Prophylaxis reduced DVT (relative risk [RR] = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.92), proximal DVT (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.31-0.69), and pulmonary embolism (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.53-0.93). Prophylaxis increased the risk of any bleeding (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.06) but not major bleeding. Across trials comparing LMWH to UFH, there were no differences for any outcome.ConclusionsAmong medical patients, pharmacologic prophylaxis reduced the risk of thromboembolism without increasing risk of major bleeding. The current literature does not demonstrate superior efficacy of UFH or LMWH.(c) 2009 Society of Hospital Medicine.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.