The Annals New | Pharmaco Epidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 103-110. DOI 10.1345/aph.16483
© 1998 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow PDF
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spinler, S.
Right arrow Articles by Nawarskas, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Spinler, S.
Right arrow Articles by Nawarskas, J.


Research Articles

Low-molecular-weight heparins for acute coronary syndromes

SA Spinler and JJ Nawarskas

OBJECTIVE: To review published literature regarding the use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the acute coronary syndromes of unstable angina and acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: A MEDLINE search (January 1986-August 1997) was performed to identify all pertinent articles. Selected references from these articles and abstracts of recent clinical trials were also included. DISCUSSION: LMWHs have several distinct advantages over standard unfractionated heparin (UFH). These advantages include convenient once- or twice-daily standardized administration without the need for activated partial thromboplastin time monitoring. While the use of LMWHs as prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism is fairly well-established, the use of LMWHs for treating acute myocardial ischemia is evolving. Published studies and abstracts have shown LMWHs to be as effective as or more effective than UFH in preventing death, myocardial infarction, and recurrent ischemia in patients with unstable angina or acute MI. The comparative incidence of bleeding between LMWHs and UFH is controversial, with some studies reporting lower or similar rates of bleeding with LMWHs, while one study demonstrated a higher bleeding rate than with UFH. The cost-effectiveness of using LMWHs over UFH for acute coronary syndromes also remains to be established. CONCLUSIONS: LMWHs appear to be as effective as, and potentially more effective than, UFH in preventing complications of acute coronary syndromes. However, further studies are needed to better define the comparative bleeding risks of LMWHs and UFH. This, plus the lack of published peer-reviewed trial results and pharmaco-economic analyses, preclude the recommendation of routinely using LMWHs for treating unstable angina and acute MI at this time.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
The Frax.I.S. Study Group
Comparison of two treatment durations (6 days and 14 days) of a low molecular weight heparin with a 6-day treatment of unfractionated heparin in the initial management of unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction: FRAX.I.S. (FRAxiparine in Ischaemic Syndrome)
Eur. Heart J., November 1, 1999; 20(21): 1553 - 1562.
[Abstract] [PDF]




homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1998 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.