Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Pharmacokinetic profiles of intravenous versus subcutaneous administration of low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Pharmacokinetic profiles of intravenous versus subcutaneous administration of low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Pharmacokinetic profiles of intravenous versus subcutaneous administration of low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Pharmacokinetic profiles of intravenous versus subcutaneous administration of low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial
2022
Overview
Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are recommended for thromboprophylaxis in ICU patients but often fail to reach adequate peak anti-Xa activity.
To compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of intravenous (IV) versus subcutaneous (SC) route of administration of LMWH.
This was a prospective, monocentric, randomized trial. Patients were randomized to the IV route of administration with a 4-h infusion of nadroparin 3800 IU or to the SC route of administration. Randomization was stratified according to the need for vasopressor or not. Anti-Xa activity was measured at baseline, and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after the administration was started.
Sixty patients were included, of whom 30 were randomized to the IV group and 30 to the SC route. Pharmacokinetic profiles were significantly different. Mean peak anti-Xa activity was 0.38 IU/ml in the IV group vs 0.20 IU/ml in the SC group (p < 0.001). Trough values and AUC (0-24 h) were similar in both groups. Pharmacokinetic profiles were similar whether patients received vasopressors or not.
The IV route of administration with a 4-h infusion lead to a significantly higher peak anti-Xa activity without affecting trough value or the AUC (0-24 h). Whether the IV administration of LMWH might improve the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis requires further research.
Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04982055, retrospectively registered 08 July 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04982055?cond=NCT04982055&draw=2&rank=1
•The 4-h IV administration of nadroparin lead to a higher peak anti-Xa activity than the SC administration.•Peak anti-Xa activity is not correlated with vasopressor use.•Body mass index is associated with lower peak anti-Xa activities.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
