Bemiparin Versus Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism among Intensive Care Unit Patients

Abbas, Mohamed S.

doi:10.4103/ijccm.ijccm_23_17

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…DVT was found in only 4% of the patients in the bemiparin group while 20% of the patients taking enoxaparin developed DVT. Confirmed PE was found in 14% of patients in the enoxaparin group as compared to no recorded case in the bemiparin group [ 35 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thromboprophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Literature Review

Ejaz

Ahmed

Tasleem

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thromboembolism is a major complication in hospitalized patients. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients have a greater risk of thrombotic events due to additional risk factors such as immobilization, mechanical ventilation, and central catheters. The diagnosis and management of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients are challenging and these conditions are associated with high mortality. Medical thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as well as unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been shown to reduce the incidence of thromboembolic events in such patients. For patients with high risk of bleeding, mechanical thromboprophylaxis can be used. Literature database was conducted on Medline for articles published up to 2018 using particular search terms such as thromboprophylaxis and venous thromboembolism in ICU patients. The following review summarizes the existing data regarding thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients with special consideration to the use of mechanical prophylaxis and pharmacologic prophylaxis using heparin products.

show abstract

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thromboprophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Literature Review

Ejaz

Ahmed

Tasleem

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data from two trials were published in registries, and we received additional data for one trial 333435. Eighteen trials were excluded from analyses because they either compared interventions that we had grouped in the same treatment node; compared interventions that we could not classify; or compared a mix of interventions (supplementary table 4) 343637383940414243444546474849505152…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Eck

Elling

Sutton

et al. 2022

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and admitted to hospital. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and national health authority databases. The search was last updated on 16 November 2021. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that evaluated low or intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, or no intervention for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill adult patients in hospital. Main outcome measures Random effects, bayesian network meta-analyses used four co-primary outcomes: all cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and serious adverse events at or closest timing to 90 days. Risk of bias was also assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. Results 44 randomised controlled trials that randomly assigned 90 095 participants were included in the main analysis. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggested none of the interventions reduced all cause mortality compared with placebo. Pentasaccharides (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible interval 0.08 to 1.07), intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most likely to reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (very low to low quality evidence). Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were most likely to increase major bleeding (low to moderate quality evidence). No conclusive differences were noted between interventions regarding serious adverse events (very low to low quality evidence). When compared with no intervention instead of placebo, all active interventions did more favourably with regard to risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality, and less favourably with regard to risk of major bleeding. The results were robust in prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusions Low-molecular-weight heparin in an intermediate dose appears to confer the best balance of benefits and harms for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable profile. A systematic discrepancy was noted in intervention effects that depended on whether placebo or no intervention was the reference treatment. Main limitations of this study include the quality of the evidence, which was generally low to moderate due to imprecision and within-study bias, and statistical inconsistency, which was addressed post hoc. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020173088.

show abstract

“…Результаты настоящего исследования полностью согласуются с данными других работ. Так, в одной из работ последнего времени было показано, что низкомолекулярные гепарины имеют преимущества перед гепарином в различных аспектах, а бемипарин превосходит эноксапарин по частоте крупных экхимозов в месте введения антикоагулянтов [3].…”

Section: обсуждение результатовunclassified

Effectiveness and safety of different schemes of perioperative prophylaxis withheparins in spine surgery

Karelov

Хмара

2018

Stacionarozameshchayushchie tekhnologii: Ambulatornaya khirurgi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To study of effectiveness and safety of different schemes of perioperative prophylaxis against thromboembolism with heparins 36 patients who has been undergone spinal surgery under general anaesthesia were divided into three equal groups. Heparin, enoxaparin, and bemiparine were administrated to patients of h-group, e-group, and b-group, respectively, in routine regimen. Large ecchymosis, thromboembolic events, and bleeding were registered for first 5 postoperative days. Only the former has shown statistically significant differences between hand b-groups (p=0.01). In addition, emergence of large ecchymosis was higher in e-group compared with b-group (p=0.047). Thus, our data have suggested effectiveness and safety of different schemes of perioperative prophylaxis with heparins in spine surgery.

show abstract

Bemiparin Versus Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism among Intensive Care Unit Patients

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

Thromboprophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Literature Review

Thromboprophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Literature Review

Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Effectiveness and safety of different schemes of perioperative prophylaxis withheparins in spine surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About