Self-Managed Long-Term Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Therapy: The Balance of Benefits and Harms
Abstract
Purpose
A substantial clinical need exists for an alternate to vitamin K antagonists for treating deep vein thrombosis in many patients. Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), body-weight adjusted, avoids anticoagulant monitoring and may be associated with less bleeding. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of long-term LMWH compared with vitamin K antagonist therapy in a broad spectrum of patients with proximal vein thrombosis.
Methods
We performed a multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial using objective outcome measures comparing therapy for 3 months. Outcomes were assessed at 3 and 12 months.
Results
Of 737 patients, 18 of 369 receiving tinzaparin (4.9%) had recurrent venous thromboembolism at 3 months compared with 21 of 368 (5.7%) receiving usual care (absolute difference, −0.8%, 95% confidence interval −4.1-2.4). Hemorrhagic complications occurred less frequently in the LMWH group largely because of less minor bleeding: 48 of 369 patients (13.0%) versus 73 of 368 patients (19.8%) receiving usual-care anticoagulation (absolute difference −6.8%; P = .011; risk ratio = 0.66). New major bleeding events ceased early (by day 23, P = .034) for patients receiving LMWH but persisted throughout the study treatment interval for patients receiving vitamin K antagonist therapy. No mortality advantage was shown for LMWH.
Conclusion
Our study shows that LMWH is similar in effectiveness to the usual-care vitamin K antagonist treatment for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism in a broad spectrum of patients. It causes less harm and enhances the clinicians’ therapeutic options for patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis. Our findings reported here suggest the possibility of a broader role for long-term LMWH in selected patients.
Keywords: Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin, Broad spectrum of patients, Usual-care anticoagulation, Vitamin K antagonist therapy
The study was supported by a Medical Research Council (now Canadian Institutes for Health Research) and Industry grant (Leo Pharmaceutical Products Ltd A/S of Denmark). Additional funding was provided by Pharmion and Dupont Pharmaceuticals. Leo provided study drug and drug safety monitoring. The funding organization(s) and sponsor(s) did not have a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation or approval of the article.
Study design table and participating sites appendix available online.
PII: S0002-9343(06)00507-9
doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.03.030
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

