List Of Non Gamstop Casinos UKCasinos Not On GamstopNon Gamstop CasinosCasino Non Aams ItaliaNon Gamstop Casinos
Trial-Results center  
Clinical trial results database Feedback    Home


Related trials

Lopaciuk, 3000 - subcutaneous heparin vs intravenous heparin

RE-COVER, 2009 - dabigatran vs vitamin K antagonists

Romera, 2009 - Tinzaparin vs acenocoumarol

González-Fajardo, 2008 - Enoxaparin vs coumarin

Botticelli DVT, 2008 - apixaban vs heparin/VKA

Einstein-DVT Dose-Ranging Study, 2008 - rivaroxaban vs heparin/VKA

VanGogh DVT, 2007 - idraparinux vs heparin/VKA

VanGogh PE, 2007 - idraparinux vs heparin/VKA

Daskalopoulos, 2005 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital

Fiessinger , 2005 - ximelagatran vs vitamin K antagonists

Chong, 2005 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital

Kearon, 2004 - 4 months vs 3 months

Ramacciotti, 2004 - LMWH at home vs UFH in hospital

MATISSE, 2004 - fondaparinux vs enoxaparin

Lee, 2003 - Dalteparin vs warfarin

Agnelli, 2003 - 6-12 months vs 3 months

Kakkar, 2003 - Bemiparin vs warfarin

Deitcher, 2003 - Enoxaparin vs warfarin

MATISSE PE, 2003 - fondaparinux vs heparin/VKA

Hull, 2002 - Tinzaparin vs warfarin

Meyer, 2002 - Enoxaparin vs warfarin

Agnelli, 2001 - 12 months vs 3 months

Merli (once daily vs UFH), 2001 - once daily enoxaparin vs UFH

Lopez-Beret, 2001 - Nadroparin vs acenocoumarol

Merli, 2001 - once daily enoxaparin vs twice daily enoxaparin



See also:

  • All venous thrombosis clinical trials
    		•  

    Lopez-Beret study, 2001

    Treatments

    Studied treatment LMWH, 1,025 IU/10 kg bid followed by Nadroparin 1,025 IU/10 kg bid
    Control treatment LMWH, 1,025 IU/10 kg bid followed by Acenocoumarol target INR 2-3

    Patients

    Patients patients with objective diagnosis of DVT by compression ultrasonography
    Baseline characteristics
    objective DVT diagnosis CUS 
    objective PR diagnosis HCT/PA 
    cancer (%) 22.1%  
    Outcome assessment blinded Yes 

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 81 / 77 (studied vs. control)
    Blinding open
    Follow-up duration 6-9 mo
    Number of centre single center
    Primary endpoint none defined


    Results

    Endpoint Studied treat.
    n/N     Control treat.
    n/N     Graph RR [95% CI]

    VTE during active anticoagulant treatment

    9 / 81
         3 / 77
         classic 2,85 [0,80;10,14]

    VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment

    2 / 74
         4 / 74
         classic 0,50 [0,09;2,65]     0 2 1.0

    Relative risks
    Endpoint Events (%) Relative Risk 95% CI Endpoint definition
    in the trial
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    VTE during active anticoagulant treatment 9 / 81 (11,1%) 3 / 77 (3,9%) 2,85 [0,80;10,14]  
    VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment 2 / 74 (2,7%) 4 / 74 (5,4%) 0,50 [0,09;2,65]  
    The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters

    Endpoint studied treat. control treat. mean diff

    Absolute risk reduction
    Endpoint Events rate Absolute risk
    reduction (ARR)
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    VTE during active anticoagulant treatment 11,11% 3,90% 7,2%
    VTE during follow-up after active anticoagulant treatment 2,70% 5,41% -27,0‰


    Reference(s)

    Trials register # NA
    • López-Beret P, Orgaz A, Fontcuberta J, Doblas M, Martinez A, Lozano G, Romero A. Low molecular weight heparin versus oral anticoagulants in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis.. J Vasc Surg 2001;33:77-90
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

    (c) 2004-2010 TrialResults-center - All Rights Reserved

    Tweet this  |  notify a friend

    Digital discoveries