Trial reportThe Canadian journal of cardiology2010
Safety and effectiveness of enoxaparin following fibrinolytic therapy: Results of the Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)-QUEBEC registry.
Trial report in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Update on the Pharmacological Actions of Enoxaparin in Nonsurgical Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses demonstrated the superior efficacy of enoxaparin (ENOX) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The external validity of randomized controlled trials may be limited by selective inclusion of patients who are younger and healthier than the 'real-life' population.
objectiveTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ENOX compared with UFH in unselected STEMI patients.
methodsThe safety and effectiveness of ENOX and UFH were compared in STEMI patients who received fibrinolytic therapy at 17 Quebec hospitals in 2003.
resultsA total of 498 STEMI patients received systemic anticoagulation, with ENOX and UFH administered in 114 and 384 patients, respectively. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two patient groups. The rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebral events were 11.4% in the ENOX group compared with 14.0% in the UFH group (P=0.51). In-hospital death or nonfatal reinfarction occurred in 7.9% of patients who received ENOX compared with 9.9% of patients who received UFH (P=0.52). Major bleeding occurred in 4.4% of patients who received ENOX versus 6.0% in patients who received UFH (P=0.51).
interpretationThere was no significant difference in the rates of in-hospital adverse events in the ENOX group compared with the UFH group, when used in the real-life context. Larger observational studies may further confirm the safety, effectiveness and optimal duration of the administration of ENOX in unselected STEMI patients treated with fibrinolysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.