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, 175 IU/kg qd followed by Tinzaparin 175 IU/kg qd
|
Control treatment |
UFH 5 d, followed by UFH therapeutic APTT followed by Warfarin target INR 2-3
|
Patients
Patients |
patients with objective diagnosis of DVT by Venography/compression ultrasonography |
Baseline characteristics |
objective DVT diagnosis |
Venography/CUS |
objective PR diagnosis |
not applicable |
cancer (%) |
28% |
Outcome assessment blinded |
NA |
|
Method and design
Randomized effectives |
369 / 368 (studied vs. control) |
Blinding |
open |
Follow-up duration |
9 mo |
Number of centre |
multicenter |
Results
Endpoint
Studied treat. n/N
Control treat. n/N
Graph
RR [95% CI]
VTE during active anticoagulant treatment
16 / 369
21 / 368
0,76 [0,40;1,43]
VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment
15 / 344
15 / 344
classic
1,00 [0,50;2,01]
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
|
16 / 369 (4,3%) |
21 / 368 (5,7%) |
0,76 |
[0,40;1,43] |
|
VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment
|
15 / 344 (4,4%) |
15 / 344 (4,4%) |
1,00 |
[0,50;2,01] |
|
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 |
4,34% |
5,71% |
-13,7‰
|
VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment |
4,36% |
4,36% |
0,0‰
|
Reference(s)
-
Hull RD, Pineo GF, Mah AF, et al, for the LITE Study.
A randomized trial evaluating long-term lowmolecular-
weight heparin therapy for three months versus
intravenous heparin followed by warfarin sodium [abstract].582258.
Blood 2002; 100:148a
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
|