SynthesisCardiovascular drugs and therapy2026
Individualizing Thromboprophylaxis: From Fixed Doses to Targeted Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Use.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2026. 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.
- Intermediate-Dose Tinzaparin Versus Low-Dose Enoxaparin as Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Internal Medicine Patients.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, constitutes a significant cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality among surgical patients. Despite the widespread use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis, conventional fixed-dose regimens frequently yield subprophylactic anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) levels, particularly in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, or altered drug pharmacokinetics. These interindividual variations in LMWH pharmacodynamics underscore the need for personalized anticoagulant strategies. Anti-Xa-guided dosing has emerged as a strategy to individualize prophylaxis and optimize outcomes.
objectiveTo summarize evidence on individualized LMWH thromboprophylaxis, focusing on anti-Xa-guided strategies, their clinical efficacy, and limitations in real-world implementation.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies evaluating fixed-dose, weight-based, and anti-Xa-adjusted LMWH prophylaxis across trauma, surgical, intensive care, and oncology settings.
resultsAcross multiple studies, up to 87.7% of patients receiving fixed-dose LMWH were found to have subtherapeutic anti-Xa levels, particularly in surgical and obese cohorts. Dose adjustment based on anti-Xa monitoring was consistently associated with improved attainment of prophylactic levels and lower VTE incidence, without a significant increase in major bleeding events. However, heterogeneity in study design, small sample sizes, and the lack of large randomized trials limit broad clinical adoption.
conclusionsEvidence supports the potential benefit of individualized LMWH dosing guided by anti-Xa monitoring in selected patient populations. Standardization of testing protocols and prospective validation are needed to enable widespread clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41231373What 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.