Thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
- 14 May 2015
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Intensive Care Medicine
- Vol. 41 (7), 1209-1219
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3840-z
Abstract
To compare benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) as thromboprophylaxis in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH with UFH as thromboprophylaxis in adult ICU patients. We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, UpToDate, Guidelines International Network, PROSPERO and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials through 3 December 2014. Random effects risk ratios (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were derived for the endpoints deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, mortality and net clinical benefit (any DVT, any PE, major bleeding and/or mortality). Eight RCTs (5567 patients) were included, whereof two were considered to have overall low risk of bias. Pooled analyses showed that LMWH compared with UFH reduced the risk of any DVT (RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.71–0.98, p = 0.03) and resulted in a net clinical benefit (RR 0.90, 95 % CI 0.83–0.97, p = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of any PE (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.41–1.03, p = 0.06), major bleeding (RR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.77–1.28, p = 0.96) or mortality (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.78–1.12, p = 0.43). TSA supported the results of the conventional analysis on the outcome net clinical benefit but not on risk of any DVT. Evidence from this systematic review revealed a beneficial effect of LMWH compared with UFH when used as thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients.This publication has 72 references indexed in Scilit:
- Heparin Thromboprophylaxis in Medical-Surgical Critically Ill PatientsCritical Care Medicine, 2013
- GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecisionJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation StudyPLOS ONE, 2011
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Dalteparin versus Unfractionated Heparin in Critically Ill PatientsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Enoxaparin, effective dosage for intensive care patients: double-blinded, randomised clinical trialCritical Care, 2010
- Low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: A systematic reviewJournal of Critical Care, 2009
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986