Direct comparison of enoxaparin and nadroparin in a rabbit model of arterial thrombosis prevention

Vlašín, M.; Dvořák, Martin; Dvorakova, Martina; Raušer, Petr; Lexmaulová, L.; Gregor, Zdeněk

doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2010.03.001

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, no difference was noted between these two formulations in terms of bleeding and preventing thrombelastometry. 38 39 40 Due to small sample size, enoxaparin and nadroparin were not individually analyzed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Safety between Different Kinds of Heparins in Patients Receiving Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

Guan

Chen

et al. 2020

Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of low molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients receiving intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP). Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed a total of 344 patients receiving IABP for cardiogenic shock, severe heart failure, ventricular septal rupture, or mitral valve prolapse due to AMI. A total of 161 patients received UFH (a bolus injection 70 U/kg immediately after IABP, followed by infusion at a rate of 15 U/kg/hour and titration to for 50 to 70 seconds of activated partial thromboplastin time. A total of 183 patients received LMWH (subcutaneous injection of 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours for 5 to 7 days and 1.0 mg/kg every 24 hours thereafter). Events of ischemia, arterial thrombosis or embolism, and bleeding during IABP were evaluated. Major bleeding was defined as a hemoglobin decrease by >50 g/L (vs. prior to IABP) or bleeding that caused hemodynamic shock or life-threatening or requiring blood transfusion. Results Subjects receiving UFH and LMWH did not differ in baseline characteristics. Ischemia was noted in five (3.1%) and two (1.1%) subjects in UFH and LMWH groups, respectively. Arterial thromboembolism occurred in three (1.9%) subjects in the UFH group, but not in the LMWH group. Logistic regression analysis failed to reveal an association between ischemia or bleeding with heparin type. Major bleeding occurred in 16 (9.9%) and six (3.3%) patients in the UFH and LWMH groups, respectively (p = 0.014). Regression analysis indicated that LMWH is associated with less major bleeding. Conclusion LMWH could reduce the risk of major bleeding in patients receiving IABP. Whether LMWH could reduce arterial thromboembolism needs further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Safety between Different Kinds of Heparins in Patients Receiving Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

Guan

Chen

et al. 2020

Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[14][15][16] However, no study compared the safety and efficacy of nadroparin and enoxaparin for HD patients except for one animal study. 25 Unfractionated heparin is still routinely used in Taiwan as well as North America. 19 We do not routinely prescribe LMWH in regular HD procedures because of its higher cost.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Safety and Anticoagulation Efficacy of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients: A Single Medical Center Experience

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In many countries low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are increasingly used for hemodialysis (HD). Low-range activated clotting time (ACT-LR) values and anti-Xa activity had been used to monitor the degree of anticoagulation caused by LMWH. However, the facilities are not easily available at most hospitals. Such data are limited in Taiwan. Methods: A total of 76 patients receiving maintenance HD were prospectively enrolled. The HD patients were randomized to receive either nadroparin or enoxaparin and checked the ACT-LR values and anti-Xa activity. We aimed to analyze ACT-LR values and anti-Xa activity along with the clotting of the dialyzer or bleeding events associated with two LMWHs after they were administered. We also aimed to determine the dose necessary to reach maximum safety and efficacy. Results: We found no significant differences in LMWH dosage, ACT-LR values, and anti-Xa activity between the two groups. There were no significant differences in bleeding/adverse events and extracorporeal circuit thrombosis between the two groups. Most of the bleeding and adverse events were subcutaneous minor bleeding. No major bleeding or mortality was found. We found significant differences in mean dosage, cost, bleeding/adverse effect, and extracorporeal circuit thrombosis between excessive and reduced nadroparin dosage groups. Conclusion: LMWH is not still routinely used due to its high cost in Taiwan. In our clinical experience, nadroparin and enoxaparin exhibited high levels of safety and efficacy in chronic HD patients. Reduced LMWHs dosage could promote patient's safety and decreased HD cost in HD patients with excessive dosage of LMWHs.

show abstract

Direct comparison of enoxaparin and nadroparin in a rabbit model of arterial thrombosis prevention

Cited by 2 publications

References 25 publications

Comparison of Safety between Different Kinds of Heparins in Patients Receiving Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

Comparison of Safety between Different Kinds of Heparins in Patients Receiving Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

Clinical Safety and Anticoagulation Efficacy of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients: A Single Medical Center Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About