PubMed · 9362886
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
N Carr. 1997-10-01. Quicker, better, cheaper.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9362886/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Heparin and direct thrombin inhibitors, such as hirudin, have limitations in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. Heparin does not inactivate fibrin-bound thrombin, whereas hirudin fails to block thrombin generation. In contrast, Vasoflux is a novel anticoagulant that inactivates fibrin-bound thrombin and attenuates factor Xa generation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vasoflux is prepared by depolymerization of heparin, restricting molecular size to between 3000 and 8000 Da, and reducing antithrombin affinity by periodate oxidation. Vasoflux catalyzes fibrin-bound thrombin inactivation by heparin cofactor II (HCII) and inhibits factor IXa activation of factor X independently of antithrombin and HCII. Compared with other anticoagulants in a thrombogenic extracorporeal circuit, Vasoflux maintains filter patency at concentrations that produce an activated clotting time (ACT) of 220 seconds. In contrast, to maintain filter patency, heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and hirudin require concentrations that produced an ACT of 720, 415, and >1500 seconds, respectively, whereas dermatan sulfate was ineffective at concentrations that produced an ACT of 360 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: Vasoflux is more effective than heparin and LMWH because it inactivates fibrin-bound thrombin and is superior to hirudin and dermatan sulfate because it also blocks factor Xa generation.
BACKGROUND: Although preoperative and postoperative initiation of prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are effective, the relative effectiveness and safety of these approaches is unknown. In the absence of a published definitive level 1 trial addressing this question, a meta-analysis is appropriate. OBJECTIVE: To report a meta-analysis comparing preoperative with postoperative initiation of prophylaxis of DVT in patients undergoing elective hip replacement. METHODS: Relevant trials were identified, and potential biases in the meta-analysis were minimized by analyzing all rigorously performed randomized trials that met all of the following criteria for conduct of the trial: (1) double-blind design, (2) objective documentation of the frequencies of DVT by ascending contrast venography, (3) venography performed before or at the time of discharge from the hospital, (4) initiation of the same LMWH preoperatively or postoperatively in dosages shown to be effective, (5) compliance with the criteria for a level 1 trial, and (6) objective documentation of major and minor bleeding according to strict criteria. RESULTS: Treatment with LMWH initiated preoperatively was associated with a DVT frequency of 10.0% compared with a frequency of 15.3% when the LMWH was initiated postoperatively (P = .02, Fisher exact test). Major bleeding was less frequent in patients receiving preoperatively initiated LMWH than in patients receiving postoperatively initiated LMWH (0.9%, vs. 3.5%; P = .01, Fisher exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the need for a randomized comparison of preoperative and postoperative initiation of pharmacological prophylaxis of DVT. Such a trial would resolve the divergent practices for DVT prophylaxis between Europe and the North American countries, the United States and Canada, and would affect the treatment for thousands of patients on both continents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.