Kakkar V V, Cohen A T, Edmonson R A, Phillips M J, Cooper D J, Das S K, Maher K T, Sanderson R M, Ward V P, Kakkar S
Thrombosis Research Institute, London, UK.
Lancet. 1993 Jan 30;341(8840):259-65. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92614-y.
Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is effective in the prevention of postoperative venous thromboembolism but does it have the safety advantages over standard heparin (SH) that have been claimed? In a multicentre randomised trial in 3809 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery (1894 LMWH, 1915 SH) heparin was given preoperatively and continued for at least 5 postoperative days. Patients were assessed in the postoperative period and were followed up for at least 4 weeks, the emphasis being on safety. Major bleeding events occurred in 69 (3.6%) patients in the LMWH group and 91 (4.8%) patients in the SH group (relative risk 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.04; p = 0.10). 93 indices of major bleeding were observed in the 69 LMWH patients and 141 in the SH patients. (p = 0.058). Severe bleeding was less frequent in the LMWH group (1.0% vs 1.9%; p = 0.02), as was wound haematoma (1.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.007). Bleeding episodes with LMWH were less likely to lead to further surgery to evacuate a haematoma or to control bleeding, and injection site bruising was also less common in the LMWH group. No significant differences were found in the efficacy of the two agents. Perioperative death rates were 3.3% in the LMWH group and 2.5% in the SH group; pulmonary emboli were detected in 0.7% and 0.7%; and deep-vein thrombosis was diagnosed in 0.6% of patients in each group. Follow-up was done on 91% of 3699 evaluable patients. There were 19 further deaths (10 LMWH, 9 SH group) and 25 patients with thromboembolic complications (15 and 10). Of the 3 patients with fatal pulmonary emboli during follow-up 2 had received LMWH and 1 SH. The two drugs were of similar efficacy. The primary end point, the frequency of major bleeding, showed a 23% reduction in the LMWH group, but this difference was not significant. The secondary safety end points revealed that LMWH was significantly better than SH. Fatal pulmonary embolism occurs rarely (0.09%) following discharge from hospital so the cost benefit ratio would not justify prolonged prophylaxis in this setting.
低分子量肝素(LMWH)在预防术后静脉血栓栓塞方面有效,但它是否具有所宣称的优于标准肝素(SH)的安全性优势呢?在一项针对3809例接受腹部大手术患者的多中心随机试验中(1894例使用LMWH,1915例使用SH),术前给予肝素并持续至术后至少5天。对患者在术后进行评估,并随访至少4周,重点关注安全性。LMWH组69例(3.6%)患者发生大出血事件,SH组91例(4.8%)患者发生大出血事件(相对危险度0.77,95%置信区间0.56 - 1.04;p = 0.10)。69例使用LMWH的患者共观察到93次大出血指标,使用SH的患者观察到141次(p = 0.058)。LMWH组严重出血的发生率较低(1.0%对1.9%;p = 0.02),伤口血肿的发生率也较低(1.4%对2.7%;p = 0.007)。LMWH引起的出血事件导致进一步手术以清除血肿或控制出血的可能性较小,且LMWH组注射部位瘀伤也较少见。两种药物在疗效方面未发现显著差异。LMWH组围手术期死亡率为3.3%,SH组为2.5%;肺栓塞检出率均为0.7%;每组深静脉血栓形成的诊断率均为0.6%。对3699例可评估患者中的?91%进行了随访。又有19例患者死亡(LMWH组10例,SH组9例),25例患者出现血栓栓塞并发症(分别为15例和10例)。在随访期间发生的3例致命性肺栓塞患者中,2例接受了LMWH治疗,1例接受了SH治疗。两种药物疗效相似。主要终点指标,即大出血的发生率,LMWH组降低了23%,但这一差异不显著。次要安全性终点指标显示LMWH明显优于SH。出院后致命性肺栓塞很少发生(0.09%),因此在这种情况下成本效益比不支持延长预防用药时间。