4.6 Article

An open-label randomized controlled trial of low molecular weight heparin compared to heparin and coumadin for the treatment of venous thromboembolic events in children: the REVIVE trial

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 109, 期 2-3, 页码 85-92

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0049-3848(03)00059-8

关键词

pediatrics; venous thromboembolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective(s): Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are serious complications in children and for which the standard of care, unfractionated heparin followed by oral anticoagulation (UFH/OA), is problematic. The objective of REVIVE was to compare the efficacy and safety of aloud molecular weight heparin (reviparin-sodium) to UFH/OA for the treatment of VTE in children. Study design: This multicenter, open-label study, with blinded central outcome adjudication, randomized patients with objectively confirmed VTE to receive either reviparin-sodium or UFH/OA. Dose adjustments were made using nomograms. The efficacy outcome was based on recurrent VTE and death due to VTE during the 3-month treatment period. The safety outcomes were major bleeding, minor bleeding and death. Due to slow patient accrual, REVIVE was closed prematurely. Results: At 3 months, with reviparin-sodium, 2/36 patients (5.6%) had recurrent VTE or death compared to 4/40 patients (10.0%) receiving UFH/OA (odds ratio=0.53; 95% CI=(0.05, 4.00); Fisher's exact test: 2P=0.677). There were 7 major bleeds, 2/36 (5.6%) in the reviparin-sodium group and 5/40 (12.5%) in UFH/OA group (odds ratio=0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.04, 2.76); Fisher's exact test: P=0.435). There were 5 deaths during the study period, 1 (2.8%) in the reviparin-sodium group and 4 (10.0%) in the UFH/OA group. All five deaths were unrelated to VTE but one was due to an intracranial hemorrhage in the UFH/OA group. Conclusions: Although limited by small sample size, REVIVE provides valuable information on the incidence of recurrent VTE, major bleeding and problematic issues associated with therapy of VTE in children. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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