Suppr超能文献

住院内科患者应用未分级肝素预防静脉血栓栓塞:每日三次优于每日两次给药。

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin in the hospitalized medical patient: the case for thrice daily over twice daily dosing.

机构信息

Cardinal Health Pharmacy Solutions, Lovelace Medical Center, Lovelace Rehabilitation Hospital, Lovelace Health Systems, 601 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87102, USA.

出版信息

Intern Emerg Med. 2010 Aug;5(4):299-306. doi: 10.1007/s11739-010-0359-8. Epub 2010 Feb 23.

Abstract

For venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in the hospitalized medical patient, no head-to-head trials have been performed of unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 U subcutaneously thrice (i.e. q8 h or TID) daily versus twice daily (q12 h or BID). Several meta-analyses have been undertaken in attempts to determine whether one regimen may be more beneficial for safety and efficacy. Currently, not all international guidelines include a recommended frequency for UFH. Delineation of this frequency may be helpful to the practicing clinician. Primary studies (with a modified Jadad score of >or=6 to demonstrate a stronger study design) that compared low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and UFH, and UFH and placebo were evaluated. Meta-analyses evaluating safety and efficacy of LMWH versus UFH, or TID UFH versus BID UFH were also evaluated. Although BID UFH shows some efficacy in one primary study, it is no more beneficial than no prophylaxis in another study. LMWH appears to be more efficacious than BID UFH, but comparable in safety and efficacy to TID UFH. Meta-analytic data demonstrates that BID UFH may have some reduction in deep vein thrombosis. Meta-analytic data also suggests that TID UFH is more efficacious than BID UFH at the cost of more major bleeding. The medical patient with risk factors for the development of VTE appears to be at moderate to high risk. International guidelines for VTE prevention should incorporate a frequency for UFH to guide use. TID UFH is superior in efficacy to BID UFH even when taking into consideration the increased rate of major bleeds. Newly published risk-assessment models may be beneficial in determining which patients would best benefit from BID UFH or TID UFH.

摘要

对于住院的内科患者,尚未进行皮下注射普通肝素(UFH)5000U 每日三次(即每 8 小时一次,tid)与每日两次(每 12 小时一次,bid)预防静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)的头对头试验。为了确定一种方案在安全性和有效性方面是否更有优势,已经进行了几项荟萃分析。目前,并非所有国际指南都包括 UFH 的推荐频率。确定这种频率可能对临床医生有帮助。评估了比较低分子肝素(LMWH)与 UFH 和 UFH 与安慰剂的主要研究(改良 Jadad 评分>或=6 以证明研究设计更强)。还评估了评估 LMWH 与 UFH 或 tid UFH 与 bid UFH 安全性和有效性的荟萃分析。虽然 bid UFH 在一项主要研究中显示出一定的疗效,但在另一项研究中,它并不比不进行预防更有优势。LMWH 似乎比 bid UFH 更有效,但在安全性和疗效方面与 tid UFH 相当。荟萃分析数据表明,bid UFH 可能会减少深静脉血栓形成。荟萃分析数据还表明,tid UFH 比 bid UFH 更有效,但大出血的风险更高。有发生 VTE 风险的内科患者似乎处于中高度风险。VTE 预防的国际指南应包括 UFH 的使用频率以指导使用。即使考虑到大出血发生率增加,tid UFH 在疗效上也优于 bid UFH。新发表的风险评估模型可能有助于确定哪些患者最受益于 bid UFH 或 tid UFH。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验