Background The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH). Objectives To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of LMWH and UFH for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. Search strategy A comprehensive search for trials of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled cancer patients undergoing a surgical intervention and compared the effects of LMWH to UFH on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism(PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia. Data collection and analysis Two review authors used a standardized form to independently extract in duplicate data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Main results Of 8187 identified citations, we included 16 RCTs with 11,847 patients in the meta-analyses, all using preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The meta-analysis did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared to UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.28), PE (RR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.25 to1.41), minor bleeding (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) and major bleeding (RR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.36). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.43, 0.84) while UFH was associated with higher incidence of intra-operative transfusion (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.69,1.62). Authors' conclusions We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH verus UFH in their effects on mortality and embolic outcomes in patients with cancer. Further trials are needed to more carefully evaluate the benefits and harms of different heparin thromboprophylaxis strategies in this population.

Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer / E.A. Akl, N. Labedi, I. Terrenato, M. Barba, F. Sperati, E.V. Sempos, P. Muti, D. Cook, H. Schünemann. - In: COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS. - ISSN 1469-493X. - 2011:11(2011 Nov 09).

Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer

P. Muti;
2011

Abstract

Background The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH). Objectives To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of LMWH and UFH for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. Search strategy A comprehensive search for trials of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled cancer patients undergoing a surgical intervention and compared the effects of LMWH to UFH on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism(PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia. Data collection and analysis Two review authors used a standardized form to independently extract in duplicate data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Main results Of 8187 identified citations, we included 16 RCTs with 11,847 patients in the meta-analyses, all using preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The meta-analysis did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared to UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.28), PE (RR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.25 to1.41), minor bleeding (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) and major bleeding (RR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.36). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.43, 0.84) while UFH was associated with higher incidence of intra-operative transfusion (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.69,1.62). Authors' conclusions We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH verus UFH in their effects on mortality and embolic outcomes in patients with cancer. Further trials are needed to more carefully evaluate the benefits and harms of different heparin thromboprophylaxis strategies in this population.
Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Pulmonary Embolism; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombosis; Venous Thrombosis
Settore MED/01 - Statistica Medica
9-nov-2011
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
11CD009447.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 630.69 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
630.69 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/666934
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 40
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 23
social impact