• A Själander, J-H Jansson, D Bergqvist, H Eriksson, B Carlberg, and P Svensson.
• Department of Internal Medicine, Sundsvall Hospital, Sundsvall, Sweden. anders.sjalander@lvn.se
• J. Intern. Med. 2008 Jan 1; 263 (1): 52-60.

ObjectivesVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially serious complication of hospitalization and immobilization. The use of anticoagulant prophylaxis in acutely ill medical inpatients is still under debate. New data including a recent meta-analysis have recently been published. We aim at studying the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant prophylaxis in acutely ill medical inpatients, and demonstrate differences between meta-analyses due to different data extraction from the heterogeneous studies included.SubjectsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1980 to present. Manual searches were performed regarding abstracts from major meetings. Seven blinded randomized controlled clinical trials assessing the prophylactic effect of heparin in acutely ill medical patients were identified and included in the meta-analysis.ResultsLow-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis prevented 48% of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), 48% of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (not significant) and 51% of asymptomatic DVT. A nonsignificant trend towards higher bleeding risk during LMWH prophylaxis was found. Death was not significantly affected. We compared our data with a recent meta-analysis with different study selection and data extraction and found similar results.ConclusionsAs DVT and PE are manifestations of the same illness, VTE, one can argue that anticoagulant prophylaxis prevents approximately half of the expected events. Most medical inpatients have short hospital stays, and a low risk of VTE. The important task for the clinician is to identify patients with a sufficiently high risk of symptomatic VTE to warrant LMWH prophylaxis. Despite differences in study selection and data extraction, our study shows results similar to a recent meta-analysis.

18 keywords...

hide…