 |
 |

Enoxaparin vs Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary SyndromeReply
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
In Reply: We agree with Dr Pedrini and colleagues that the appropriate duration of anticoagulation therapy in patients with nonST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes has not been rigorously evaluated. While trials could be designed to investigate optimal duration, the study requirements are potentially prohibitive. A trial with random allocation of patients to 1 of 2 study drugs for various intervals of therapy such as 1 hour, 4 hours, and 12 hours would require an enormous sample size to detect differences in outcomes.
However, large data sets such as that from the SYNERGY trial1 provide an alternative approach to investigating the optimal duration of therapy based on associations between duration of therapy and clinical efficacy and safety outcomes. Unfortunately, these types of analyses are complicated by potential confounding bias. As an example, the timing of the outcomes is important because patients with early events often have therapy discontinued, resulting in an . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Kenneth W. Mahaffey, MD
mahaf002@mc.duke.edu
James J. Ferguson, MD;
Robert M. Califf, MD for the SYNERGY Trial Investigators
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Enoxaparin vs Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Michael Pedrini, Frank Hartig, and Christoph Pechlaner
JAMA. 2004;292(16):1952.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Enoxaparin vs Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Balavenkatesh Kanna and Puneeta Sharma
JAMA. 2004;292(16):1952.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Enoxaparin vs Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary SyndromeReply
Michael A. Blazing
JAMA. 2004;292(16):1953.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|