4.4 Article

Comparison of two escalated enoxaparin dosing regimens for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in obese hospitalized patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOLYSIS
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 577-583

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-020-02360-9

关键词

Venous thromboembolism; Enoxaparin; Heparin; Deep vein thrombosis; Anticoagulation

资金

  1. University of North Texas Health Science Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Standard fixed-dose enoxaparin dosing regimens may not provide adequate prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism among obese hospitalized patients. Escalated dosing regimens of enoxaparin, both weight-based and twice-daily, appear to be effective at achieving target anti-factor Xa levels with no safety concerns. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical significance of these results.
Standard fixed-dose enoxaparin dosing regimens may not provide adequate prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism among obese hospitalized patients. While several escalated doses have been shown to result in more frequent attainment of target anti-factor Xa levels than standard doses, few studies compare escalated doses to each other. In this prospective, multi-center trial, enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg daily (weight-based dosing) and enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily were compared to determine if either dose resulted in more frequent attainment of anti-factor Xa levels within the goal range of 0.2-0.5 IU/mL. Eighty patients with a BMI >= 40 kg/m(2) were enrolled. There was no difference in the percent of patients achieving goal anti-factor Xa levels (72.5% vs. 70.0%, respectively; p = 0.72). Patients were more likely to attain anti-factor Xa levels below goal range than above. No bleeding or thrombotic events occurred. Either weight-based or twice-daily escalated enoxaparin dosing regimens appear effective at achieving target anti-factor Xa levels among hospitalized patients, and no safety events were noted. Future studies are needed to determine the clinical significance of this result.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据