Enter Your Email Address to Receive a
Copy of MedicExhange Member Demograhpics

Compared to prophylactic use of unfractionated heparin, employing LMWH is more effective in preventing venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in ischemic stroke patients, US-based researchers report. Compared to prophylactic use of unfractionated heparin, employing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is more effective in preventing venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in ischemic stroke patients, according to pooled data from trials involving more than 2000 patients, Washington, DC-based researchers report.

"The key implication of our analysis," lead investigator Dr. Andrew F. Shorr told Reuters Health, "is that it demonstrates that choices regarding deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis can later reach clinically meaningful endpoints such as rate of pulmonary embolism."

As reported in the January issue of Chest, Dr. Shorr of Washington Hospital Center and colleagues studied data from three trials comparing these two approaches.

The use of LMWH versus unfractionated heparin was associated with a significantly reduced risk of any venous thromboembolism (odds ratio, 0.54), proximal venous thromboembolism (odds ratio, 0.53) and of pulmonary embolisms (odds ratio, 0.26).

There were no between-group differences in the rate of overall bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage or mortality based on the type of agent employed.

"Given that full anti-coagulation in a stroke patient can be hazardous," concluded Dr. Shorr, "anything that improves prevention without compromising safety becomes an important addition to our armamentarium in the care of seriously ill patients.