0
Summaries for Patients |

What Is the Most Effective Blood Thinner for Treating Patients with Blood Clots in the Veins? FREE

[+] Article and Author Information

The summary below is from the full report titled “Suboptimal Monitoring and Dosing of Unfractionated Heparin in Comparative Studies with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin.” It is in the 6 May 2003 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 138, pages 720-723). The authors are R. Raschke, J. Hirsh, and J.R. Guidry.


Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(9):I-63. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-9-200305060-00004
Text Size: A A A

What is the problem and what is known about it so far?

When blood clots form in veins (blood vessels that carry blood back to the heart), serious and even fatal complications can occur. Doctors use blood thinners to promote clot breakdown and prevent additional clots. For many years, the most commonly used blood thinner has been a drug known as unfractionated heparin. To be effective, unfractionated heparin must be injected every 6 hours (or given continuously through a needle in a vein). This requires hospitalization and careful daily monitoring of the dose to confirm effective blood thinning. More recently, another preparation of heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), has been introduced. It can be given at home, requires less frequent injections, and does not require daily monitoring of the dose. However, LMWH is about 10 times as expensive as unfractionated heparin. Several studies have suggested that LMWH is more effective than unfractionated heparin. Since the implications for cost and effectiveness are important, doctors need to be confident that these studies fairly compare unfractionated heparin and LMWH. The problem is that to make a fair comparison, researchers must be certain that the correct dose of unfractionated heparin was administered. This depends on accurate laboratory tests. Over the past 25 years, many different laboratory tests have been used, each having a different standard for effective blood thinning dose.

Why did the authors do this particular study?

To find out whether previous studies had carefully considered the potential influence of variations in laboratory tests in concluding that LMWH is more effective than unfractionated heparin.

How was the study done?

The researchers searched the medical literature from 1984 to 2001 to identify published articles that randomly assigned patients to receive either LMWH or unfractionated heparin and then evaluated how the researchers decided on the correct dose of unfractionated heparin.

What did the researchers find?

15 journal articles were identified. Only 3 of these articles described the specific laboratory methods used to evaluate the degree of blood thinning caused by a particular dose of unfractionated heparin, while 10 articles simply assumed that a standard evaluation of blood thinning was effective. Only 3 articles reported exactly how the dose of unfractionated heparin was adjusted.

What were the limitations of the study?

The researchers did not compare clinical outcomes between studies with and without careful attention to methods for monitoring blood thinning.

What are the implications of the study?

Although this study identifies the possibility of unfairness in previous comparisons between unfractionated heparin and LMWH, it does not prove that unfractionated heparin is as good as or better than LMWH in treating patients with blood clots in the veins.

Figures

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Journal Club
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)