ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions2021
Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Comparison of Thromboprophylactic Use of Enoxaparin versus Unfractionated Heparin in 376,858 Medically Ill Hospitalized US Patients.
Article in American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Venous Thromboembolism After Coronary Artery Bypass Increases Health Care Costs: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Optimizing venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis in abdominal-based breast reconstruction: a narrative review of evidence and practice.Gland surgery · 2025Review
- Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis Does Not Increase Risk of Complications in Free Flap Breast Reconstruction.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Resource utilization and inpatient hospitalization costs associated with thromboembolic events among patients with polycythemia vera.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and safety of prophylactic anticoagulation among hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Effectiveness, safety, and costs of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in inpatients with obesity.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical use of low-dose parenteral anticoagulation, incidence of major bleeding and mortality: a multi-centre cohort study using the French national health data system.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Bilateral proximal deep vein thrombosis and COVID-19 in a patient with absence of inferior vena cava: A case report and review of literature.Clinical case reports · 2022Article
- Assessment of Healthcare Resource Utilization by Anticoagulant Heparinoid Dosage Level in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication in medically ill inpatients. Enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) thromboprophylaxis has been shown to reduce VTE in clinical trials; however, comparative effectiveness and differences in hospital costs are unknown in US hospital practice.
objectiveThis study compared clinical and economic outcomes between enoxaparin and UFH thromboprophylaxis in medically ill inpatients.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database between 1 January 2010 and 30 September 2016. Inpatients aged ≥ 18 years with a ≥ 6-day hospital stay for serious medical conditions were included. Two patient groups receiving thromboprophylaxis were identified during hospitalization: one receiving enoxaparin and other receiving UFH. Regression models were constructed to compare VTE events, in-hospital mortality, pulmonary embolism (PE)-related mortality, major bleeding, and total hospital costs during both the index hospitalization and the 90-day readmission period between the two groups.
resultsA total of 242,474 and 134,384 inpatients received enoxaparin or UFH for thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Compared with UFH prophylaxis, enoxaparin was significantly associated with 15%, 9%, 33%, and 41% reduced odds of VTE, in-hospital mortality, PE-related mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, during index hospitalization, and 10% and 19% reduced odds of VTE and bleeding, respectively, during the readmission period. Mean total hospital costs were significantly lower in patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis than in those given UFH.
conclusionsThromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin was associated with significantly reduced in-hospital VTE events, death, and major bleeding and lower hospital costs compared with UFH in hospitalized medically ill patients.
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.