These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials comparing low-molecular weight heparins with unfractionated heparin in unstable angina.
    Author: Malhotra S, Karan RS, Bhargava VK, Pandhi P, Grover A, Sharma YP, Kumar R.
    Journal: Indian Heart J; 2001; 53(2):197-202. PubMed ID: 11428477.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin has been used extensively for the treatment of unstable angina/non-Q wave myocardial infarction but it has several disadvantages. Low-molecular weight heparins are now recommended although they are 3-5 times costlier than unfractionated heparin since they are convinient to administer and do not require activated thromboplastin time monitoring. Whereas enoxaparin, a low-molecular weight heparin, has been demonstrated to be superior to unfractionated heparin, the results of other low-molecular weight heparins have not been so convincing. METHOD AND RESULTS: Through manual, MEDLINE and EMBASE search, we identified five randomized trials (excluding enoxaparin trials) that compared low-molecular weight heparins with unfractionated heparin in unstable angina. The prespecified efficacy end point of interest included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, recurrent angina and urgent revascularization. The safety end point was taken as a composite of major hemorrhage, minor hemorrhage, thrombocytopenia, allergic reaction and any other adverse event. We calculated odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for each trial for the composite end point, and the pooled odds ratio (95%) confidence interval) was calculated using two established methods of meta-analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel-Peto method and the DerSirmonian-Laird method. Both the methods yielded similar odds ratio (95% confidence interval). Separate odds ratio were calculated for efficacy and safety end points. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of the composite efficacy end point: the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.83 (0.70-0.99: p=0.08). The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for the safety data was 0.78 (0.69-1.26: p=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was observed when the efficacy and safety of low-molecular weight heparins were compared with those of unfractionated heparin. A cost-effectiveness analysis of low-molecular weight heparins versus unfractionated heparin must be done urgently to establish more firmly the place of low-molecular weight heparins in the management of unstable angina.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]