Gould M K, Dembitzer A D, Doyle R L, Hastie T J, Garber A M
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Section, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, California 94304, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 1999 May 18;130(10):800-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-10-199905180-00003.
Low-molecular-weight heparins may simplify the management of deep venous thrombosis. A critical clinical issue is whether this more convenient therapy is as safe and effective as treatment with unfractionated heparin.
To compare the safety and efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparins with those of unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis.
Reviewers identified studies by searching MEDLINE, reviewing references from retrieved articles, scanning abstracts from conference proceedings, and contacting investigators and pharmaceutical companies.
Randomized, controlled trials that compared a low-molecular-weight heparin preparation with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis.
Two reviewers extracted data independently. Reviewers evaluated study quality using a validated four-item instrument.
Eleven of 37 studies met inclusion criteria for three major outcomes. Most studies used proper randomization procedures, but only one was double-blinded. Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins reduced mortality rates over 3 to 6 months of patient follow-up (odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94]; P = 0.02). For major bleeding complications, the odds ratio favored low-molecular-weight heparins (0.57 [CI, 0.33 to 0.99]; P = 0.047), but the absolute risk reduction was small and not statistically significant (0.61% [CI, -0.04% to 1.26%]; P = 0.07). For preventing thromboembolic recurrences, low-molecular-weight heparins seemed as effective as unfractionated heparin (odds ratio, 0.85 [CI, 0.63 to 1.14]; P > 0.2).
Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment reduces mortality rates after acute deep venous thrombosis. These drugs seem to be as safe as unfractionated heparin with respect to major bleeding complications and appear to be as effective in preventing thromboembolic recurrences.
低分子量肝素可能会简化深静脉血栓形成的管理。一个关键的临床问题是这种更便捷的治疗方法是否与普通肝素治疗一样安全有效。
比较低分子量肝素与普通肝素治疗急性深静脉血栓形成的安全性和有效性。
综述作者通过检索MEDLINE、查阅检索文章的参考文献、浏览会议论文摘要以及联系研究者和制药公司来确定研究。
比较低分子量肝素制剂与普通肝素治疗急性深静脉血栓形成的随机对照试验。
两名综述作者独立提取数据。综述作者使用经过验证的四项工具评估研究质量。
37项研究中有11项符合三项主要结局的纳入标准。大多数研究采用了适当的随机程序,但只有一项是双盲的。与普通肝素相比,在患者随访3至6个月期间,低分子量肝素降低了死亡率(比值比,0.71 [95% CI,0.53至0.94];P = 0.02)。对于主要出血并发症,比值比有利于低分子量肝素(0.57 [CI,0.33至0.99];P = 0.047),但绝对风险降低很小且无统计学意义(0.61% [CI,-0.04%至1.26%];P = 0.07)。对于预防血栓栓塞复发,低分子量肝素似乎与普通肝素一样有效(比值比,0.85 [CI,0.63至1.14];P > 0.2)。
低分子量肝素治疗可降低急性深静脉血栓形成后的死亡率。这些药物在主要出血并发症方面似乎与普通肝素一样安全,并且在预防血栓栓塞复发方面似乎同样有效。