Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) as thromboprophylaxis in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

Methods

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).

Results

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.

Conclusions

Evidence from this systematic review revealed a beneficial effect of LMWH compared with UFH when used as thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cook D, Crowther M, Meade M et al (2005) Deep venous thrombosis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: prevalence, incidence, and risk factors. Crit Care Med 33:1565–1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Geerts WH, Pineo GF, Heit JA et al (2004) Prevention of venous thromboembolism: the seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 126:338S–400S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ribic C, Lim W, Cook D et al (2009) Low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: a systematic review. J Crit Care 24:197–205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Geerts WH, Bergqvist D, Pineo GF et al (2008) Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 133:381S–453S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M et al (2012) Executive summary: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 141(2 Suppl):7S–47S

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alhazzani W, Lim W, Jaeschke RZ et al (2013) Heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care Med 41:2088–2098

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dentali F, Douketis JD, Gianni M et al (2007) Meta-analysis: anticoagulant prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Ann Intern Med 146:278–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mismetti P, Laporte S, Darmon JY et al (2001) Meta-analysis of low molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in general surgery. Br J Surg 88:913–930

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrera LM, Perel P, Ker K et al (2013) Thromboprophylaxis for trauma patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:1–79

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kakkos SK, Caprini JA, Geroulakos G et al (2008) Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  11. Arnold DM, Donahoe L, Clarke FJ et al (2007) Bleeding during critical illness: a prospective cohort study using a new measurement tool. Clin Invest Med 30:E93–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Briegel J, Mohnle P (2013) International guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign: update 2012. Anaesthesist 62:304–309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohran WG (1954) The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10:101–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E et al (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1373–1379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP et al (2011) Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 343:d4002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pogue JM, Yusuf S (1997) Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. Control Clin Trials 18:580–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pogue J, Yusuf S (1998) Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 351:47–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J et al (2008) Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 61:64–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenland S, Robins JM (1985) Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 41:55–68

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Copenhagen Trial Unit (2015) Trial sequential analysis. http://www.ctu.dk/tsa/. Accessed 24 Feb 2015

  25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohn SA, Moller BA, Feinstein AJ et al (1999) Prospective trial of low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in moderately injured patients. Vasc Surg 33:219–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cook D, Meade M, Guyatt G et al (2011) Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 364:1305–1314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. De A, Roy P, Garg VK et al (2010) Low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients undergoing major surgery. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 21:57–61

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Geerts WH, Jay RM, Code KI et al (1996) A comparison of low-dose heparin with low-molecular-weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med 335:701–707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldhaber S, Kett D, Cusumano CJ et al (2000) Low molecular weight heparin versus minidose unfractionated heparin for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in medical intensive care unit patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 35(Suppl):A325

  32. Greenfield LJ, Proctor MC, Rodriguez JL et al (1997) Posttrauma thromboembolism prophylaxis. J Trauma 42:100–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Roque T, Thompson J, Kuru T (2005) A clinical trial to compare thromboprophylaxis options in the medical ICU: challanges to treatment (conference abstract). Chest 128:296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shorr AF, Williams MD (2009) Venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Observations from a randomized trial in sepsis. Thromb Haemost 101:139–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr et al (1974) The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 14:187–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kvåle R (2013) Årsrapport for 2012. Norsk intensivregister (NIR) http://www.intensivregister.no/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=C6y7hQoWLK0%3d&tabid=55&mid=377. Accessed 21 Nov 2014

  37. Marik PE, Andrews L, Maini B (1997) The incidence of deep venous thrombosis in ICU patients. Chest 111:661–664

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hirsch DR, Ingenito EP, Goldhaber SZ (1995) Prevalence of deep venous thrombosis among patients in medical intensive care. JAMA 274:335–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Harris LM, Curl GR, Booth FV et al (1997) Screening for asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis in surgical intensive care patients. J Vasc Surg 26:764–769

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Twigg SJ, McCrirrick A, Sanderson PM (2001) A comparison of post mortem findings with post hoc estimated clinical diagnoses of patients who die in a United Kingdom intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 27:706–710

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wahl WL, Ahrns KS, Zajkowski PJ et al (2003) Normal d-dimer levels do not exclude thrombotic complications in trauma patients. Surgery 134:529–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cook DJ, Donadini MP (2010) Pulmonary embolism in medical-surgical critically ill patients. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 24:677–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cook D, Meade M, Guyatt G et al (2004) Clinically important deep vein thrombosis in the intensive care unit: a survey of intensivists. Crit Care 8:R145–R152

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hinz P, Lubenow N, Wessel A et al (2009) Thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma surgery units in Germany: a survey. Unfallchirurg 112:1029–1033

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Junqueira DR, Perini E, Penholati RR et al (2012) Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin for avoiding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in postoperative patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:1–35

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fareed J, Jeske W, Fareed D et al (2008) Are all low molecular weight heparins equivalent in the management of venous thromboembolism? Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 14:385–392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nenci GG (2003) Low molecular weight heparins: are they interchangeable? No. J Thromb Haemost 1:12–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Prandoni P (2003) Low molecular weight heparins: are they interchangeable? Yes. J Thromb Haemost 1:10–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. van der Heijden JF, Prins MH, Buller HR (2000) Low-molecular-weight heparins: are they interchangeable? Haemostasis 30(Suppl 2):148–157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Limpus A, Chaboyer W, McDonald E et al (2006) Mechanical thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Crit Care 15:402–410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Huo MH, Muntz J (2009) Extended thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins after hospital discharge in high-risk surgical and medical patients: a review. Clin Ther 31:1129–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Garcia-Olivares P, Guerrero JE, Galdos P et al (2014) PROF-ETEV study: prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic disease in critical care units in Spain. Intensive Care Med 40:1698–1708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Schaden E, Metnitz PG, Pfanner G et al (2012) Coagulation day 2010: an Austrian survey on the routine of thromboprophylaxis in intensive care. Intensive Care Med 38:984–990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wilbur K, Lynd LD, Sadatsafavi M (2011) Low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in medicine patients—a pharmacoeconomic analysis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 17:454–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Fowler RA, Mittmann N, Geerts W et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of dalteparin vs unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. JAMA 312:2135–2145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M et al (2011) The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis—a simulation study. PLoS One 6:e25491

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al (2011) GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1283–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ et al (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1(273):408–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1992) A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 16:78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD et al (2010) Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 30(340):c11

    Google Scholar 

  61. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C et al (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 7:1–76

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (1995) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ, London

    Google Scholar 

  63. Raskob GE, Hirsh J (2003) Controversies in timing of the first dose of anticoagulant prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major orthopedic surgery. Chest 124(Suppl 6):379S–385S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Tribout B, Colin-Mercier F (2007) New versus established drugs in venous thromboprophylaxis: efficacy and safety considerations related to timing of administration. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 7:1–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bottaro FJ, Elizondo MC, Doti C et al (2008) Efficacy of extended thrombo-prophylaxis in major abdominal surgery: what does the evidence show? A meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 99:1104–1111

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Skeik N, Rumery KK, Rodriguez GT (2014) The new era of anticoagulation. Ann Vasc Surg 28:503–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Cheng SS, Nordenholz K, Matero D et al (2012) Standard subcutaneous dosing of unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in surgical ICU patients leads to subtherapeutic factor Xa inhibition. Intensive Care Med 38:642–648

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Malinoski D, Jafari F, Ewing T et al (2010) Standard prophylactic enoxaparin dosing leads to inadequate anti-Xa levels and increased deep venous thrombosis rates in critically ill trauma and surgical patients. J Trauma 68:874–880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Robinson S, Zincuk A, Strom T et al (2010) Enoxaparin, effective dosage for intensive care patients: double-blinded, randomised clinical trial. Crit Care 14:R41

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Marie Isachsen for performing the literature search and documenting the search strategy, and to Kjetil Gundro Brurberg for helpful input on the result presentation.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Sigrid Beitland, Per Morten Sandset & Kjetil Sunde

  2. Department of Anaesthesiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Sigrid Beitland, Lill-Kristin Kjærvik, Kjetil Sunde & Torsten Eken

  3. Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Research Support Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Irene Sandven

  4. Department of Haematology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Per Morten Sandset

Authors
  1. Sigrid Beitland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irene Sandven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lill-Kristin Kjærvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Per Morten Sandset
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kjetil Sunde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Torsten Eken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigrid Beitland.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 2409 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beitland, S., Sandven, I., Kjærvik, LK. et al. Thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive Care Med 41, 1209–1219 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3840-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3840-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation