Enoxaparin may be associated with lower rates of mortality than unfractionated heparin in neurocritical and surgical patients

S Samuel, C To, Y Ling, K Zhang, X Jiang… - Journal of Thrombosis …, 2023 - Springer
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 2023Springer
Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are often
administered to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients. However,
the preferred prophylactic agent (UFH or LMWH) is not known. We compared the all-cause
mortality rate in patients receiving UFH to LMWH for VTE prophylaxis. We conducted a
retrospective propensity score adjusted analysis of patients admitted to neuro-critical,
surgical, or medical intensive care units. Patients were included if they were screened with …
Abstract
Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are often administered to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients. However, the preferred prophylactic agent (UFH or LMWH) is not known. We compared the all-cause mortality rate in patients receiving UFH to LMWH for VTE prophylaxis. We conducted a retrospective propensity score adjusted analysis of patients admitted to neuro-critical, surgical, or medical intensive care units. Patients were included if they were screened with venous duplex ultrasonography or computed tomography angiography for detection of VTE. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of VTE, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Initially 2228 patients in the cohort were included for analysis, 1836 (82%) patients received UFH, and 392 (18%) patients received enoxaparin. After propensity score matching, a well-balanced cohort of 618 patients remained in the study (309 patients receiving UFH; 309 patients receiving enoxaparin). The use of UFH for VTE prophylaxis in ICU patients was associated with similar rates of all-cause mortality compared with enoxaparin [RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43–1.24, p = 0.310]. There were no differences in the prevalence of DVT, prevalence of PE or hospital LOS between the two groups, DVT [RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.56–1.53, p = 0.889], PE [RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.78–2.90, p = 0.296] and LOS [9 ± 9 days vs 9 ± 8; p = 0.857]. A trend toward mortality benefit was observed in NICU [RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.13–1.07, p = 0.062] and surgical patients [RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17–1.02, p = 0.075] favoring the enoxaparin group. The use of UFH for VTE prophylaxis in ICU patients was associated with similar rates of VTE, all-cause mortality and LOS compared to enoxaparin. In subgroup analysis, neuro-critical and surgical patients who received UFH had a higher rate of mortality than those who received enoxaparin.
Springer
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果