You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 292 No. 16, October 27, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Revascularization
 •Thrombolysis
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery
 •Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction
 •Drug Therapy
 •Adverse Effects
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Enoxaparin vs Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndrome—Reply

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 non–ST-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



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter 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 Syndrome—Reply
Michael A. Blazing
JAMA. 2004;292(16):1953.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.