PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 225–243 | Cite as

Enoxaparin

A Pharmacoeconomic Review of its Use in the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism and in Acute Coronary Syndromes
Review Article

Abstract

The pharmacoeconomics of the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin in the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism have mostly been investigated in cost-effectiveness studies that estimated direct costs associated with treatment, using decision analyses and clinical outcome data from randomised controlled trials. These studies have shown enoxaparin to be cost effective compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and warfarin in short-term thromboprophylaxis for hospital inpatients undergoing orthopaedic surgery and in thromboprophylaxis following trauma. Outpatient treatment of acute proximal deep vein thrombosis with enoxaparin has also been shown to be cost effective compared with inpatient treatment using UFH. In general surgery, however, it remains to be determined whether enoxaparin is a cost-effective alternative to UFH.

The cost effectiveness of enoxaparin compared with UFH in the treatment of unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction has also been investigated in several countries using clinical outcomes data from the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) randomised trial. ESSENCE demonstrated that enoxaparin was superior to UFH in terms of tolerability and efficacy, and cost saving at both 30-day and 1-year follow-ups.

An increasing number of studies indicate enoxaparin to be of economic benefit when used for prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and treatment of acute coronary symdromes.

References

  1. 1.
    Bick RL, Fareed J. Current status of thrombosis: a multidisciplinary medical issue and major American health problem: beyond the year 2000. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 1997; 3 Suppl. 1: S75–95Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bick RL. Proficient and cost-effective approaches for the prevention and treatment of venous thrombosis and thromboembolism. Drugs 2000; 60 (3): 575–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Samama MM. An epidemiologic study of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis inmedical outpatients: the Sirius study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160 (22): 3415–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirsh J, Weitz JI. New antithrombotic agents. Lancet 1999; 353: 1431–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hovanessian HC. New-generation anticoagulants: the low molecular weight heparins. Ann Emerg Med 1999; 34: 768–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warkentin TE, Levine MN, Hirsh J, et al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1330–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Monreal M, Lafoz E, Olive A, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin with a low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin) in patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindications to coumarin. Thromb Haemost 1994; 71: 7–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leizorovicz A. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins and unfractionated heparin in initial treatment of deep venous thrombosis: an updated metaanalysis. Drugs 1996; 52 Suppl. 7: 30–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lassen MR, Borris LC. Managing the risk of thrombosis in the perioperative period in patients undergoing orthopedic and trauma surgery with low-molecular-weight heparin: enoxaparin. Orthopedics 1997; 20 Suppl.: 14–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antman EM, Cohen M, Radley D, et al., for the TIMI 11B (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and ESSENCE (Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events) Investigators. Assessment of the treatment effect of enoxaparin for unstable angina/non-Qwave myocardial infarction. TIMI 11B-ESSENCE metaanalysis. Circulation 1999; 100: 1602–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sekhri NK. Managed care: the US experience. Bull World Health Organ 2000; 78: 830–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rawlins M. In pursuit of quality: the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Lancet 1999; 353: 1079–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee: including major submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1995Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ccohta.ca/newweb/pubapp/pdf/peg_e.pdf [Accessed 2002 Mar 1]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weitz JI. Low-molecular-weight heparins. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 688–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Drummond M, Aristides M, Davies L, et al. Economic evaluation of standard heparin and enoxaparin for prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis in elective hip surgery. Br J Surg 1994; 81: 1742–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menzin J, Richner R, Huse D, et al. Prevention of deep-vein thrombosis following total hip replacement surgery with enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 271–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hawkins DW, Langley PC, Krueger KP. Pharmacoeconomic model of enoxaparin versus heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 1185–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marchetti M, Liberato NL, Ruperto N, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in elective hip replacement. Haematologica 1999; 84: 730–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Brien BJ, Anderson DR, Goeree R. Cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus warfarin prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. CMAJ 1994; 150: 1083–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Menzin J, Colditz GA, Regan MM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin vs low-dose warfarin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement surgery. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 757–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hawkins DW, Langley PC, Krueger KP. A pharmacoeconomic assessment of enoxaparin and warfarin as prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing knee replacement surgery. Clin Ther 1998; 20: 182–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saunders ME, Grant RE. Cost effectiveness of low-molecular weight heparin versus warfarin following hip replacement surgery. J Natl Med Assoc 1998; 90: 677–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garcia-Zozaya I. Warfarin vs enoxaparin for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis after total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a cost comparison. J Ky Med Assoc 1998; 96: 143–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wade WE, Hawkins DW. Cost effectiveness of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2000; 23: 335–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mark DB, Cowper PA, Berkowitz SD, et al. Economic assessment of low-molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndrome patients. Results from the ESSENCE randomized trial. Circulation 1998; 97: 1702–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fox KAA, Bosanquet N. Assessing the UK cost implications of the use of low molecular weight heparin in unstable coronary artery disease. Br J Cardiol 1998; 5: 92–105Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Balen RM, Marra CA, Zed PJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for acute coronary syndromes: a Canadian hospital perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 533–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Brien BJ, Willan A, Blackhouse G, et al. Will the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) in patients with acute coronary syndrome save costs in Canada? Am Heart J 2000; 139: 423–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bosanquet N, Fox K. Long-term economic benefits reflect improved clinical outcomes with enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndromes [letter]. Br J Cardiol 2001; 8 (1): 36–7Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Detournay B, Huet X, Fagnani F, et al. Economic evaluation enoxaparin versus heparin in unstable angina. French substudy of the ESSENCE trial. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18 (1): 83–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jørgensen LN, Wille-Jørgensen P, Hauch O, et al. Prophylaxis of postoperative thromboembolism with low molecular weight heparins. Br J Surg 1993; 80 (6): 689–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jørgensen PS, Strandberg C, Wille-Jorgenson P, et al. Early preoperative thromboprophylaxis with Klexane® in hip fracture surgery: a placebo-controlled study. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 1998; 4 (2): 140–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leclerc JR, Geerts WH, Desjardins L, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind trial comparing enoxaparin with warfarin. Ann Intern Med 1996; 126: 619–26Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Planes A, Vochelle N, Darmon J-Y, et al. Risk of deep-venous thrombosis after hospital discharge in patients having undergone total hip replacement: double-blind randomised comparison of enoxaparin versus placebo. Lancet 1996; 348: 224–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bergqvist D, Benoni G, Björgell O, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 696–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nurmohamed MT, Verhaeghe R, Haas S, et al. A comparative trial of low molecular weight heparin versus standard heparin for the prophylaxis of postoperative deep venous thrombosis in general surgery. Am J Surg 1995; 169: 567–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    ENOXACAN Study Group. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elective cancer surgery: a double-blind randomized multicentre trial with venographic assessment. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 1099–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lechler E, Schramm W, Flosbach CW, et al. The venous thrombotic risk in non-surgical patients: epidemiological data and efficacy/safety profile of a low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin). Haemostasis 1996; 26 Suppl. 2: 49–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bergmann J-F, Neuhart E. A multicenter randomized double-blind study of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolic disease in elderly in-patients bedridden for an acute medical illness. Thromb Haemost 1996; 76: 529–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Geerts WH, Jay RM, Code KI, et al. A comparison of low-dose heparin with low-molecular-weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 701–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Samama MM, Cohen AT, Darmon J-Y, et al. A comparison of enoxaparin with placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 793–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bergqvist D, Jendteg S, Johansen L, et al. Cost of long-term complications of deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities: an analysis of a defined patient population in Sweden. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 454–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Planes A, Vochelle N, Mazas F, et al. Prevention of postoperative venous thrombosis: a randomized trial comparing unfractionated heparin with low molecular weight heparin in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Thromb Haemost 1988; 60: 407–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Colwell CW, Spiro TE, Trowbridge AA, et al., for the Enoxaparin Clinical Trial Group. Use of enoxaparin, a low molecular-weight heparin, and unfractionated heparin for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis after elective hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76-A: 3–14Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Levine MN, Hirsh J, Gent M, et al. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after elective hip surgery: a randomized trial comparing low molecular weight heparin with standard unfractionated heparin. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 545–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Anderson DR, O’Brien BJ, Levine MN, et al. Efficacy and cost of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with standard heparin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip arthroplasty. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 1105–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, et al. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 1. Getting started. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 123–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wade WE. Cost analysis of ardeparin versus enoxaparin for the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis after knee arthroplasty. Clin Ther 1998; 20: 347–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al., editors. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chevat C, Pena BM, Al MJ, et al. Healthcare resource utilisation and costs of treating NSAID-associated gastrointestinal toxicity: a multinational perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 Suppl. 1: 17–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Scurr JH, Coleridge-Smith OP, et al. Deep vein thrombosis: a continuing problem. BMJ 1988; 297: 28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Johnson R, Green JR, Charnley J. Pulmonary embolism and its prophylaxis following Charnley total hip replacements. Clin Orthop 1977; 127: 123–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dahl OE, Andreassen G, Aspelin T, et al. Prolonged thromboprophylaxis following hip replacement surgery: results of a double-blind, prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled study with dalteparin (Fragmin®). Thromb Haemost 1997; 77 (1): 26–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hull RD, Pineo GF, Francis CW, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis using dalteparin extended out-of-hospital vs in-hospital warfarin/out-of-hospital placebo in hip arthroplasty patients: a double-blind, randomized comparison. North American Fragmin Trial Investigators. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160 (14): 2208–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Detournay B, Planes A, Vochelle N, et al. Cost effectiveness of a low-molecular weight heparin in prophylaxis against prolonged deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 81–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bergqvist D, Jönsson B. Cost-effectiveness of prolonged administration of a low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) following total hip replacement. Value Health 1999; 2: 288–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Davies LM, Richardson GA, Cohen AT, et al. Economic evaluation of enoxaparin as post discharge prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis in elective hip surgery. Value Health 2001; 3 (6): 397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wilson MG, Pei LF, Malone KM, et al. Fixed low-dose versus adjusted higher-dose warfarin following orthopedic surgery: a randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9: 127–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Etchells E, McLeod RS, Geerts WH, et al. Economic analysis of low-dose heparin vs the low-molecular-weight heparin enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after colorectal surgery. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 1221–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    McLeod RS, Geerts WH, Sniderman KW, et al. Subcutaneous heparin versus low-molecular-weight heparin as thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: results of the Canadian colorectal DVT prophylaxis trial: a randomized, double-blind trial. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 438–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Heaton D, Pearce M. Low molecular weight versus unfractionated heparin: a clinical and economic appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (2): 91–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, et al. Low molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 1992; 340: 152–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bergqvist D, Lindgren B, Mätzsch T. Comparison of the cost of preventing postoperative deep vein thrombosis with either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin Br J Surg 1996; 83: 1548–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Devlin JW, Petitta A, Shepard AD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus low-dose heparin for prophylaxis against venous thrombosis after major trauma. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 1335–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wade WE, Chisholm MA. Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma: cost analysis. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2000; 11: 101–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Knudson MM, Morabito D, Paiement GD, et al. Use of low molecular weight heparin in preventing thromboembolism in trauma patients. J Trauma 1996; 41: 446–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pechevis M, Detournay B, Pribil C, et al. Economic evaluation of enoxaparin versus placebo for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients. Value Health 2001; 3 (6): 389–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Simonneau G, Charbonnier B, Decousus H, et al. Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 1541–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al., for the Prévention du Risque d’Embolie Pulmonaire par Interruption Cave Study Group. A clinical trial of vena cava filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 409–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Levine M, Gent M, Hirsh J, et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin administered primarily at home with unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital for proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 677–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dedden P, Chang B, Nagel D. Pharmacy-managed program for home treatment of deep vein thrombosis with enoxaparin. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997; 54: 1968–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Groce III JB. Patient outcomes and cost analysis associated with an outpatient deep venous thrombosis treatment program. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18 (6 Pt 3): 175S–80SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gould MK, Dembitzer AD, Sanders GD, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 789–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    O’Brien BJ, Levine M, Willan A, et al. Economic evaluation of outpatient treatment with low molecular weight heparin for proximal vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 2298–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    de Lissovoy G, Yusen RD, Spiro TE, et al. Cost for inpatient care of venous thrombosis: a trial of enoxaparin vs standard heparin. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160 (20): 3160–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu R, et al. The MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). III. Test of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32: 4066–7Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gould MK, Dembitzer AD, Doyle RL, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 800–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tillman DJ, Charland SL, Witt DM. Effectiveness and economic impact associated with a program for outpatient management of acute deep venous thrombosis in a group model health maintenance organization. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2926–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Boccalon H, Elias A, Chalé JJ, et al. Clinical outcome and cost of hospital vs home treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis with low-molecular-weight heparin. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1769–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bossuyt PM, van den Belt AG, Prins MH. Out-of-hospital treatment of venous thrombosis: socioeconomic aspects and patients’ quality of life. Haemostasis 1998; 94 (1): 65–8Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rodger M, Bredeson C, Wells PS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in treatment of deep vein thrombosis. CMAJ 1998; 159 (8): 931–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Estrada CA, Mansfield CJ, Heudebert GR. Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15 (2): 108–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hull RD, Pineo GF, Raskob GE. The economic impact of treating deep vein thrombosis with low-molecular-weight heparin: outcome of therapy and health economy aspects. Haemostasis 1998; 28 Suppl. 3: 8–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hull RD, Raskob GE, Pineo GF, et al. Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin vs warfarin for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation. An economic perspective. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157 (3): 289–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Mark DB, Harrington RA, Lincoff AM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition with eptifibatide in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 2000; 101: 366–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Yusuf S, Flather M, Pogue J, et al. Variations between countries in invasive cardiac procedures and outcomes in patients with suspected unstable angina or myocardial infarction without initial ST elevation. OASIS (Organisation to Assess Strategies for Ischaemic Syndromes) Registry Investigators. Lancet 1998; 352 (9127): 507–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Roberts RR, Zalenski RJ, Mensah EK, et al. Costs of an emergency department-based accelerated diagnostic protocol vs hospitalization in patients with chest pain: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1997; 278: 1670–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Farkouh ME, Smars PA, Reeder GS, et al., for the Chest Pain Evaluation in the Emergency Room (CHEER) Investigators. A clinical trial of a chest-pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1882–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bahr RD. Chest pain centers: moving toward proactive acute coronary care. Int J Cardiol 2000; 72: 101–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Fineberg HV, Scadden D, Goldman L. Care of patients with a low probability of acute myocardial infarction: cost effectiveness of alternatives to coronary-care unit admission. N Engl J Med 1984; 310: 1301–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, et al., for the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events Study Group. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 447–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Goodman SG, Cohen M, Bigonzi F, et al., for the ESSENCE Study Group. Randomised trial of low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease: one year results of the ESSENCE study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 693–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Antman EM, McCabe CH, Gurfinkel EP, et al., for the TIMI 11B Investigators. Enoxaparin prevents death and cardiac ischemic events in unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11B Trial. Circulation 1999; 100: 1593–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Balen RM, Marra CA, Zed PJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for acute coronary syndromes: a Canadian hospital perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 (5 Pt 2): 533–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Deutsch E. The emerging role of low-molecular-weight heparin and antiplatelet therapies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Am Heart J 1999; 138 (6 Pt 2): S577–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Chow W-H, Fan K, Chow T-C. Use of low molecular weight heparin in postangioplasty management. Int J Cardiol 1997; 58: 83–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity HospitalUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations