A randomized trial of dalteparin compared with ibuprofen for the treatment of superficial thrombophlebitis.

BACKGROUND: Superficial thrombophlebitis can produce pain and result in a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) if not treated. Conservative therapies including prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and heat have been standard care. Recently, studies have been published reporting efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of superficial thrombophlebitis. However, there are few comparative trials to conservative therapy. We studied the effectiveness and safety of treatment with dalteparin compared with ibuprofen in patients with confirmed superficial thrombophlebitis. METHODS: Consecutive patients were randomized to receive daily dalteparin vs. ibuprofen three times daily for up to 14 days. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of extension of thrombus or new symptomatic venous thromboembolism during the 14-day and 3-month follow-up period. The secondary outcome was a reduction in pain. The outcome measure of safety was the incidence of major and minor bleeding. RESULTS: Of 302 consecutive patients screened, 72 were enrolled. Four patients receiving ibuprofen compared with no patients receiving dalteparin had thrombus extension at 14 days (P = 0.05), however, there was no difference in thrombus extension at 3 months. Both treatments significantly reduced pain. There were no episodes of major or minor bleeding during the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Dalteparin is superior to the NSAID ibuprofen in preventing extension of superficial thrombophlebitis during the 14-day treatment period with similar relief of pain and no increase in bleeding. However, questions concerning the optimal treatment duration should be explored in future trials.

Treatment of upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) can result in fatal pulmonary embolism if not treated. Patients with malignancy may be at particularly high risk. Heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin followed by warfarin has been used as standard treatment for lower extremity DVT. However, a paucity of studies exist reporting the efficacy and safety of these regimens in patients with upper extremity DVT. We studied the effectiveness and safety of treatment with dalteparin sodium followed by warfarin and also dalteparin sodium monotherapy for 3 months in patients with confirmed upper extremity DVT. METHODS: Consecutive patients with confirmed upper extremity DVT received daily dalteparin sodium for 5-7 days followed by warfarin therapy for 3 months (phase I) or dalteparin sodium monotherapy for 3 months (phase II). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of new symptomatic venous thromboembolism during the 3-month follow-up period. The outcome measure of safety was the incidence of major and minor bleeding. RESULTS: Of 631 consecutive patients screened, 74 were eligible and 67 enrolled. No patients receiving either phase I (0%; 95% CI, 0-12%) or phase II (0%; 95% CI, 0-9%) therapy had venous thromboembolism on 3-month follow-up. One patient (4%; 95% CI, 0-18%) receiving phase I therapy experienced major bleeding. Five patients died during the follow-up period; none were attributed to pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with upper extremity DVT may be treated safely with either dalteparin sodium followed by warfarin or dalteparin sodium monotherapy for 3 months with a good prognosis.

Sensitivity and specificity of helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of helical computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and to determine the safety of withholding anticoagulant therapy in patients who have clinically suspected pulmonary embolism and negative results on helical CT. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE database was searched for all reports published from 1986 to October 1999 that evaluated the use of helical CT for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Bibliographies of the retrieved articles were cross-checked to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: All prospective English-language studies were selected. Retrospective studies, review articles, and case reports were excluded, and 5 of the 20 identified articles were excluded. The scientific validity of the remaining 15 articles was assessed. DATA EXTRACTION: Two of the authors used a priori, pre-defined criteria to independently assess each study. A third author resolved disagreements by adjudication. The pre-defined criteria were inclusion of a consecutive series of all patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, inclusion of patients with and those without pulmonary embolism, a broad spectrum of patient characteristics, performance of helical CT and pulmonary angiography (or an appropriate reference test) in all patients, and independent interpretation of the CT scan and pulmonary angiogram (or reference test). Specific data on sensitivity and specificity and the associated 95% CIs were recorded when available. DATA SYNTHESIS: No study met all of the predefined criteria for adequately evaluating sensitivity and specificity. The reported sensitivity of helical CT ranged from 53% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 81% to 100%. In no prospective study was anticoagulant therapy withheld without further testing for venous thromboembolism in consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. One prospective study reported the outcome of selected patients with negative results on helical CT who did not receive anticoagulant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Use of helical CT in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism has not been adequately evaluated. The safety of withholding anticoagulant treatment in patients with negative results on helical CT is uncertain. Definitive large, prospective studies should be done to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and safety of helical CT for diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism.