Hemostatic Activation under Anticoagulant Treatment: A Comparison of Unfractionated Heparin vs. Nadroparin in the Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis

H. Stricker; O. Marchetti; A. Haeberli; G. Mombelli

doi:10.1055/s-0037-1614365

Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Thromb Haemost 1999; 82(04): 1227-1231
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1614365

Review Article

Schattauer GmbH

Hemostatic Activation under Anticoagulant Treatment: A Comparison of Unfractionated Heparin vs. Nadroparin in the Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis

Autor*innen

H. Stricker

¹From the Ospedale Regionale Locarno, Locarno and the Thrombosis Research Laboratory, University of Bern, Switzerland
O. Marchetti

¹From the Ospedale Regionale Locarno, Locarno and the Thrombosis Research Laboratory, University of Bern, Switzerland
A. Haeberli

²Thrombosis Research Laboratory, University of Bern, Switzerland
G. Mombelli

¹From the Ospedale Regionale Locarno, Locarno and the Thrombosis Research Laboratory, University of Bern, Switzerland

Abstract

Summary

Background: Multiple clinical trials have been performed to compare standard heparin with low molecular weight heparin in the therapy of deep vein thrombosis, but little is known about the time course of the markers of hemostatic system during the treatment with these two heparin regimens.

Methods: Twenty patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis confirmed by duplex ultrasound and phlebography were randomly assigned to either unfractionated heparin (UH) given as an intravenous bolus of 80 U/kg followed by a constant infusion of 18 U/kg/h, or nadroparin 185 AXa IU/kg once daily subcutaneously. Oral anticoagulants were started at day 4. Markers of hemostatic activation (F1+2, FPA, TAT, D-dimer) were measured daily for 4 days. Primary end-points were the time course of these markers; secondary endpoints consisted in the evaluation of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications by clinical outcome and Marder score.

Results: Treatment with UH resulted in a rapid achievement of therapeutic heparin levels. UH reduced markers of fibrin formation and fibrinolysis more rapidly than nadroparin (p < 0.05). Within the nadroparin group activation of prothrombotic markers four hours after the subcutanous injection (peak level) was significantly lower when compared with the time prior to injection (trough level). Secondary endpoints showed no significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusion: Continuous intravenous perfusion of UH administered on a basis of a weight-adjusted nomogram controlled markers of the hemostatic system more rapidly than once-daily subcutaneously administered weight-adjusted nadroparin.

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Hirsh J, Fuster V. Guide to anticoagulant therapy. Part 1: Heparin. Circulation 1994; 89: 1449-68.
2 Raschke RA, Reilly BM, Guidry JR, Fontana JR, Srinivas S. The weight-based heparin dosing nomogram compared with a „standard care“ nomogram. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 874-81.
3 Charbonnier BA, Fiessinger JN, Banga JD, Wenzel E, d’Azemar P, Sagnard L. Comparison of a once daily with a twice daily subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin regimen in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1998; 79: 897-901.
4 The DVTENOX Study Group. Markers of hemostatic system activation in acute deep venous thrombosis-evolution during the first days of heparin treatment. Thromb Haemost 1993; 70: 909-14.
5 Herren T, Stricker H, Haeberli A, Do DD, Straub PW. Fibrin formation and degradation in patients with arteriosclerotic disease. Circulation 1994; 90: 2679-86.
6 Marder VJ, Soulen RL, Atichartakran V, Budzynski AZ, Parulekar S, Edward KN, Zahavi J, Algazy KM. Quantitative venographic assessment of deep venous thrombosis in the evaluation of streptokinase and heparin therapy. J Lab Clin Med 1977; 89: 1018-29.
7 Granger CB, Becker R, Tracy RP, Califf RM, Topol EJ, Pieper KS, Ross AM, Roth S, Labrew C, Bovill EG. Thrombin generation, inhibition and clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy and heparin: results from the GUSTO-I Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 497-505.
8 Hull RD, Raskob GE, Brant RF, Pineo GF, Valentine KA. The importance of initial heparin treatment on long-term clinical outcomes of antithrombotic therapy. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2317-21.
9 Hull RD, Raskob GE, Brant RF, Pineo GF, Valentine KA. Relation between the time to achieve the lower limit of the aPTT therapeutic range and recurrent venous thromboembolism during heparin treatment for deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2562-8.
10 Hirsh J. Heparin. New Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1565-74.
11 Bauer KA. Laboratory markers of coagulation activation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993; 117: 71-7.
12 Harenberg J, Huck K, Bratsch H, Stehle G, Dempfle CE, Mall K, Blauth M, Usadel KH, Heene DL. Therapeutic application of subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin in acute venous thrombosis. Haemostasis 1990; 20 (Suppl. 01) 205-19.
13 Agnelli G, Iorio A, Renga C, Boschetti E, Nenci GG, Ofosu FA, Hirsh J. Prolonged antithrombin activity of low-molecular-weight heparins. Circulation 1995; 92: 2819-24.
14 Mismetti P, Laporte-Simitsidis S, Navarro C, Sié P, d’Azemar P, Necciari J, Duret JP, Gaud C, Decousus H, Boneu B. Aging and venous thromboembolism influence the pharmacodynamics of the anti-factor Xa and antithrombin activities of a low molecular weight heparin (Nadroparin). Thromb Haemost 1998; 79: 1162-5.
15 de Groot M, Büller HR, ten Cate JW, van Marwijk Kooy M. Use of a heparin nomogram for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism in a community hospital. Thromb Haemost 1998; 80: 70-3.
16 Lopaciuk S, Meissner J, Filipecki S, Zawilska K, Sowier J, Cielelski L, Bielawiec M, Glowinski S, Czestochowska E. Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin versus subcutaneous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1992; 68: 14-8.
17 Simonneau G, Charbonnier B, Decousus H, Planchon B, Ninet J, Sie P, Silsiguen M, Combe S. Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 1541-46.
18 Lindmarker P, Holmström M, Granquist S, Johnsson H, Lockner D. Comparison of once daily subcutaneous Fragmin with continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1994; 72: 186-90.
19 Koopman MMW, Prandoni P, Piovella F, Ockelford PA, Brandjes DPM, van der Meer J, Gallus AS, Simonneau G, Chesterman CH, Prins MH, Bossuyt PMM, de Haes H, van den Belt AGM, Sagnard L, d’Azemar P, Büller M. on the behalf of the TASMAN study group. Treatment of venous thrombosis with intravenous unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital as compared with subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin administered at home. New Engl J Med 1996; 334: 682-7.
20 Gunnarsson PS, Sawyer WT, Montague D, Williams ML, Dupuis RE, Caaiola SM. Appropriate use of heparin. Empiric vs nomogram-based dosing. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 526-32.
21 Raschke RA, Gollihare B, Peirce JC. The effectiveness of implementing the weight-based heparin nomogram as a practice guideline. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1645-49.
22 Hollingsworth JA, Rowe BH, Brisebois FJ, Thompson PR, Fabris LM. The successful application of a heparin nomogram in a community hospital. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 2095-100.
23 Leizorovicz A, Simonneau G, Decousus H, Boissel JP. Comparison of efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins and unfractionated heparin in initial treatment of deep venous thrombosis: a meta-analysis. BMJ 1994; 309: 299-304.
24 Lensing AWA, Prins MH, Davidson BL, Hirsh J. Treatment of deep venous thrombosis with low molecular weight heparins. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 601-7.
25 Siragusa S, Cosmi B, Piovella F, Hirsh J, Ginsberg JS. Low molecular weight heparins and unfractionated heparin in the treatment of patients with acute venous thromboembolism: Results of a meta-analysis. Am J Med 1996; 100: 269-77.