PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096468

Deep Vein Thrombosis.

Abstract

Initially, patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) should be treated with a 5- to 7-day course of heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). They can be administered LMWH as outpatients. Patients with extensive iliofemoral thrombosis, major pulmonary embolism, or concomitant medical illness, and those at high risk for bleeding, should be treated as inpatients. Thrombolytic therapy may be considered for patients with extensive iliofemoral thrombosis if there is no contraindication to the use of thrombolytic drugs. Oral anticoagulants can be started within 24 hours of the initiation of heparin or LMWH. Warfarin is started at a dose of 5 mg, and subsequent doses are given in amounts sufficient to achieve an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0. Inferior vena caval filters should be considered for patients with overt bleeding or for those at high risk for hemorrhage. Warfarin can be used for secondary prophylaxis in most patients. Patients in whom there are contraindications to the use of oral anticoagulants and patients in whom recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) develops while they are receiving therapeutic doses of warfarin can be safely and effectively treated with LMWH. Patients with idiopathic DVT should be treated with anticoagulants for at least 6 months. Those with calf DVT or proximal DVT that complicates surgery or medical illness can be treated with anticoagulants for 6 weeks and 3 months, respectively, provided that there are no ongoing risk factors for recurrent VTE. Oral anticoagulants are teratogenic and should be avoided by patients who are pregnant; unfractionated heparin or LMWH are safe alternatives. Unfractionated heparin, LMWH, and oral anticoagulants can be safely administered to nursing mothers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H Al-Zahrani, SM Bates, JI Weitz. 1999. Deep Vein Thrombosis.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-999-0006-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗