Original clinical investigation

Outcomes of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs. unfractionated heparin in medical inpatients

Lisa J McGarry¹ , Michael E Stokes² and David Thompson³

¹  Health Economics & Outcomes Research, i3 Innovus, 10 Cabot Rd., Suite 304, Medford, MA 02155-5173, USA

²  Center for Health Economics & Policy, United BioSource Corporation, 101 Station Landing, Medford, MA 02155, USA

³  Global Health Economics, i3 Innovus, 10 Cabot Rd., Suite 304, Medford, MA 02155-5173, USA

author email corresponding author email

Thrombosis Journal 2006, 4:17doi:10.1186/1477-9560-4-17

Published:	27 September 2006

Abstract

Background

Clinical trials have shown low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to be at least as safe and efficacious as unfractionated heparin (UFH) for preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely-ill medical inpatients.

Objective

To compare clinical and economic outcomes among acutely-ill medical inpatients receiving the LMWH enoxaparin versus UFH prophylaxis in clinical practice.

Methods

Using a large, multi-hospital, US database, we identified persons aged ≥40 years hospitalized for ≥6 days for an acute medical condition (including circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders, infectious diseases, or neoplasms) from Q4 1999 to Q1 2002. From these patients, those who received thromboprophylaxis with either enoxaparin or UFH were identified. Surgical patients and those requiring or ineligible for anticoagulation were excluded. We compared the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and all VTE (i.e., DVT and/or PE). Secondary outcomes were occurrence of side-effects, length of hospital stay and total costs. RESULTS: 479 patients received enoxaparin prophylaxis and 2,837 received UFH. The incidence of VTE was 1.7% with enoxaparin prophylaxis versus 6.3% with UFH (RR = 0.26; p < 0.001). Occurrence of side effects, length of stay (10.00 days with enoxaparin vs. 10.26 days with UFH; p = 0.348) and total costs ($18,777 vs. $17,602; p = 0.463) were similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusion

We observed a 74% lower risk of VTE among patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis versus UFH prophylaxis. There was no significant difference in side effects or economic outcomes. These results provide evidence that the LMWH enoxaparin is more effective than UFH in reducing the risk of VTE in current clinical practice.