Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21162607›Full record

ReviewDrugs2010

Clinical experience with bemiparin.

José Ignacio Abad Rico, Francisco S Lozano Sánchez, Eduardo Rocha

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

José Ignacio Abad RicoTrauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Carlos Haya Regional University Hospital, Málaga, Spain.
Francisco S Lozano Sánchez
Eduardo Rocha
Universidad de Navarra · ESUniversidad de Salamanca · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Subcutaneous bemiparin has been evaluated for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in moderate to high-risk patients undergoing surgery, and for the acute and long-term treatment of established VTE. General and orthopaedic surgery is associated with VTE incidence rates of 15-60% in the absence of thromboprophylaxis and this can be reduced by over 70% with appropriate thromboembolic prophylaxis. Bemiparin was as effective as unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the prevention of VTE, when both were initiated preoperatively, but was associated with significantly fewer bleeding episodes than UFH. Bemiparin prophylaxis initiated postoperatively was at least as effective as bemiparin initiated preoperatively and was associated with a lower incidence of bleeding complications than preoperative initiation. In terms of patients with cancer undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery, preliminary results from a recent study with bemiparin showed that extended prophylaxis for 4 weeks significantly reduced the rate of major VTE, without increasing bleeding risk, compared with prophylaxis for one week. Bemiparin, initiated postoperatively, was as effective as enoxaparin, initiated preoperatively, in the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing total knee replacement. The incidence of bleeding complications was similar between groups, although the incidence of injection site haematoma was significantly higher with enoxaparin than with bemiparin. Postoperative initiation of bemiparin thromboprophylaxis minimized the risk of spinal haematoma in patients using neuraxial anaesthesia (approximately 93% of patients). In addition, postoperative initiation is likely to reduce the total costs, because patients do not need to be admitted to hospital the day before surgery. Bemiparin was more effective than intravenous UFH in the acute treatment of established deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and was as effective as oral warfarin in the subsequent secondary prevention of VTE over 3 months of therapy, while bleeding complications over 3 months of therapy were similarly low. In a European study, acute treatment of DVT with bemiparin for one week followed by 12 weeks' secondary prevention with bemiparin (i.e. bemiparin/bemiparin) was associated with a cost saving of &U20AC;908 per patient compared with UFH/warfarin. Similarly, bemiparin/warfarin produced a cost saving of &U20AC;769 compared with UFH/warfarin. The savings were predominantly the result of reduced hospital stays during acute treatment with bemiparin. Bemiparin was also associated with increased quality-adjusted life expectancy. Observational studies in routine clinical practice demonstrated that outpatient treatment of acute VTE was as effective as inpatient treatment, but with lower costs, and bemiparin was as effective as vitamin K antagonists over 3 months for secondary prevention, with VTE recurrence rates of 0% and 0.3% over 3 months in separate studies. Bemiparin is thus an effective, well tolerated agent for thromboprophylaxis in surgery, and for the acute and long-term treatment of established VTE, having advantages over UFH and particular benefits as a result of initiating therapy postoperatively.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsHeparin, Low-Molecular-WeightHumansPulmonary EmbolismSurgical Procedures, OperativeVenous ThromboembolismVenous ThrombosisAnticoagulantsbemiparinHeparin, Low-Molecular-Weight

Identifiers

PMID21162607
OpenAlexW2054930725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.