Quinlan Daniel J, McQuillan Andrew, Eikelboom John W
King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Feb 3;140(3):175-83. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00008.
Low-molecular-weight heparin has greatly simplified the management of deep venous thrombosis. However, for patients who present with pulmonary embolism, the role of low-molecular-weight heparin is uncertain and unfractionated heparin remains widely used.
To compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with that of dose-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin to treat acute pulmonary embolism.
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 1 August 2003. Additional data sources were manual searches of abstract proceedings and personal contact with investigators and pharmaceutical companies.
Randomized trials comparing fixed-dose subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with dose-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin for the treatment of nonmassive symptomatic pulmonary embolism or asymptomatic pulmonary embolism in the context of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis.
Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study design; quality; and clinical outcomes, including symptomatic venous thromboembolism, death, and major and minor bleeding. Odds ratios for individual outcomes were calculated for each trial and were pooled by using the Mantel-Haenszel method.
Fourteen trials involving 2110 patients with pulmonary embolism met the inclusion criteria. Separate outcome data for patients with pulmonary embolism were not available from 2 trials (159 patients), leaving 12 trials for meta-analysis. Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism at the end of treatment (1.4% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.18]) and at 3 months (3.0% vs. 4.4%; odds ratio, 0.68 [CI, 0.42 to 1.09]). Similar estimates were obtained for patients who presented with symptomatic pulmonary embolism (1.7% vs. 2.3%; odds ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.35 to 1.48]) or asymptomatic pulmonary embolism (1.2% vs. 3.2%; odds ratio, 0.53 [CI, 0.15 to 1.88]). For major bleeding complications, the odds ratio favoring low-molecular-weight heparin (1.3% vs. 2.1%; odds ratio, 0.67 [CI, 0.36 to 1.27]) was also not statistically significant.
Fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin treatment appears to be as effective and safe as dose-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of nonmassive pulmonary embolism.
低分子量肝素极大地简化了深静脉血栓形成的管理。然而,对于出现肺栓塞的患者,低分子量肝素的作用尚不确定,普通肝素仍被广泛使用。
比较固定剂量皮下注射低分子量肝素与剂量调整静脉注射普通肝素治疗急性肺栓塞的疗效和安全性。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库至2003年8月1日。其他数据来源包括手工检索摘要汇编以及与研究者和制药公司的个人联系。
比较固定剂量皮下注射低分子量肝素与剂量调整静脉注射普通肝素治疗非大面积症状性肺栓塞或症状性深静脉血栓形成背景下无症状肺栓塞的随机试验。
两名评价者独立选择研究并提取关于研究设计、质量以及临床结局的数据,包括症状性静脉血栓栓塞、死亡以及严重和轻微出血。计算每个试验各结局的比值比,并使用Mantel-Haenszel方法进行汇总。
14项涉及2110例肺栓塞患者的试验符合纳入标准。2项试验(159例患者)未提供肺栓塞患者单独的结局数据,剩余12项试验进行荟萃分析。与普通肝素相比,低分子量肝素在治疗结束时复发性症状性静脉血栓栓塞的发生率有非统计学意义的降低(1.4%对2.4%;比值比,0.63[95%CI,0.33至1.18]),3个月时也有类似情况(3.0%对4.4%;比值比,0.68[CI,0.42至1.09])。有症状性肺栓塞患者(1.7%对2.3%;比值比,0.72[CI,0.35至1.48])或无症状肺栓塞患者(1.2%对3.2%;比值比,0.53[CI,0.15至1.88])也得到类似估计。对于严重出血并发症,支持低分子量肝素的比值比(1.3%对2.1%;比值比,0.67[CI,0.36至1.27])同样无统计学意义。
对于非大面积肺栓塞的初始治疗,固定剂量低分子量肝素治疗似乎与剂量调整静脉注射普通肝素一样有效和安全。