Related trials
Lopaciuk, 3000 - subcutaneous heparin vs intravenous heparin
RE-COVER, 2009 - dabigatran vs vitamin K antagonists
Romera, 2009 - Tinzaparin vs acenocoumarol
Gonz�lez-Fajardo, 2008 - Enoxaparin vs coumarin
Botticelli DVT, 2008 - apixaban vs heparin/VKA
Einstein-DVT Dose-Ranging Study, 2008 - rivaroxaban vs heparin/VKA
VanGogh DVT, 2007 - idraparinux vs heparin/VKA
VanGogh PE, 2007 - idraparinux vs heparin/VKA
Daskalopoulos, 2005 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital
Fiessinger , 2005 - ximelagatran vs vitamin K antagonists
Chong, 2005 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital
Kearon, 2004 - 4 months vs 3 months
Ramacciotti, 2004 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital
MATISSE, 2004 - fondaparinux vs enoxaparin
Lee, 2003 - Dalteparin vs warfarin
Agnelli, 2003 - 6-12 months vs 3 months
Kakkar, 2003 - Bemiparin vs warfarin
Deitcher, 2003 - Enoxaparin vs warfarin
MATISSE PE, 2003 - fondaparinux vs heparin/VKA
Hull, 2002 - Tinzaparin vs warfarin
Meyer, 2002 - Enoxaparin vs warfarin
Agnelli, 2001 - 12 months vs 3 months
Merli (once daily vs UFH), 2001 - once daily enoxaparin vs UFH
Lopez-Beret, 2001 - Nadroparin vs acenocoumarol
Merli, 2001 - once daily enoxaparin vs twice daily enoxaparin
See also:
All venous thrombosis clinical trials
|
|
Treatments
Studied treatment |
LMWH, 1,025 IU/10 kg bid followed by Nadroparin 1,025 IU/10 kg bid
|
Control treatment |
LMWH, 1,025 IU/10 kg bid followed by Acenocoumarol target INR 2-3
|
Patients
Patients |
patients with objective diagnosis of DVT by compression ultrasonography |
Baseline characteristics |
objective DVT diagnosis |
CUS |
objective PR diagnosis |
HCT/PA |
cancer (%) |
22.1% |
Outcome assessment blinded |
Yes |
|
Method and design
Randomized effectives |
81 / 77 (studied vs. control) |
Blinding |
open |
Follow-up duration |
6-9 mo |
Number of centre |
single center |
Primary endpoint |
none defined |
Results
Endpoint
Studied treat. n/N
Control treat. n/N
Graph
RR [95% CI]
VTE during active anticoagulant treatment
9 / 81
3 / 77
classic
2,85 [0,80;10,14]
VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment
2 / 74
4 / 74
classic
0,50 [0,09;2,65]
0
2
1.0
Relative risks
|
Endpoint |
Events (%) |
Relative Risk |
95% CI |
Endpoint definition in the trial |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
VTE during active anticoagulant treatment
|
9 / 81 (11,1%) |
3 / 77 (3,9%) |
2,85 |
[0,80;10,14] |
|
VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment
|
2 / 74 (2,7%) |
4 / 74 (5,4%) |
0,50 |
[0,09;2,65] |
|
The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
|
Endpoint |
studied treat. |
control treat. |
mean diff |
Absolute risk reduction
|
Endpoint |
Events rate |
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
VTE during active anticoagulant treatment |
11,11% |
3,90% |
7,2%
|
VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment |
2,70% |
5,41% |
-27,0‰
|
Reference(s)
-
L�pez-Beret P, Orgaz A, Fontcuberta J, Doblas M, Martinez A, Lozano G, Romero A.
Low molecular weight heparin versus oral anticoagulants in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis..
J Vasc Surg 2001;33:77-90
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
|