Anderson D R, Ginsberg J S, Brill-Edwards P, Demers C, Burrows R F, Hirsh J
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
Arch Intern Med. 1993 Apr 12;153(7):841-4.
The use of subcutaneous heparin, the therapy of choice for women requiring anticoagulant prophylaxis during pregnancy, is problematic because of the discomfort produced by repeated injections. An indwelling subcutaneous Teflon catheter that can be left in place for 1 week recently became available for use as an entry port for parenteral therapy. Since the use of this catheter has the potential to overcome some of the problems of long-term heparin therapy, we decided to compare this Teflon catheter with twice-daily subcutaneous injections in women requiring heparin during pregnancy.
In a randomized, multiple-crossover study, patients alternated every 2 weeks between having heparin administered through the indwelling Teflon catheter and receiving heparin via subcutaneous injections. After each 4-week cycle, patients completed a questionnaire designed to determine their preferred method of heparin administration. The side effects, doses, and anticoagulant activity of heparin with the two delivery systems were also compared.
Twelve patients completed one to five 4-week cycles of heparin therapy. Ten of the patients selected the Teflon catheter as the preferred route of heparin administration (P = .04) and 11 patients reported that the catheter caused less pain and bruising than twice-daily subcutaneous injections (P < .01). Five patients developed urticarial reactions at the sites of heparin injections. These reactions tended to be more severe when the Teflon catheter was used, and two women discontinued using the catheter after the first cycle because of this complication. There were no differences in heparin dose requirements or achieved activated partial thromboplastin times between the two routes of heparin administration.
Most pregnant women in our study preferred to have subcutaneous heparin administered through an indwelling Teflon catheter rather than by twice-daily injections. Heparin given through the Teflon catheter was bioavailable and caused less local bruising than twice-daily injections. Urticarial reactions to heparin tended to be more severe with the use of the Teflon catheter and resulted in the discontinuation of the device's use in two of 12 patients.
皮下注射肝素是孕期需要抗凝预防的女性的首选治疗方法,但由于反复注射带来不适,该方法存在问题。一种可留置1周的皮下聚四氟乙烯导管最近可作为胃肠外治疗的进入端口使用。由于使用这种导管有可能克服长期肝素治疗的一些问题,我们决定在孕期需要肝素治疗的女性中将这种聚四氟乙烯导管与每日两次皮下注射进行比较。
在一项随机、多次交叉研究中,患者每2周交替接受通过留置聚四氟乙烯导管给予的肝素和皮下注射的肝素。每4周周期结束后,患者完成一份问卷,以确定他们首选的肝素给药方法。还比较了两种给药系统的肝素副作用、剂量和抗凝活性。
12名患者完成了1至5个4周周期的肝素治疗。10名患者选择聚四氟乙烯导管作为首选的肝素给药途径(P = 0.04),11名患者报告导管引起的疼痛和瘀伤少于每日两次皮下注射(P < 0.01)。5名患者在肝素注射部位出现荨麻疹反应。使用聚四氟乙烯导管时这些反应往往更严重,两名女性在第一个周期后因该并发症停止使用导管。两种肝素给药途径在肝素剂量需求或活化部分凝血活酶时间方面无差异。
我们研究中的大多数孕妇更喜欢通过留置聚四氟乙烯导管而非每日两次注射给予皮下肝素。通过聚四氟乙烯导管给予的肝素具有生物利用度,且引起的局部瘀伤少于每日两次注射。使用聚四氟乙烯导管时对肝素的荨麻疹反应往往更严重,导致12名患者中有2名停止使用该装置。