ライフサイエンスコーパス: unfractionated heparin

1 1% of patients (23 for enoxaparin and 17 for unfractionated heparin).

2 ., aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or unfractionated heparin).

3 cost-saving or cost-effective compared with unfractionated heparin.

4 who were treated with either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin.

5 s with planned fibrinolysis to enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin.

6 ensure administration of the optimal dose of unfractionated heparin.

7 ibatide plus enoxaparin or eptifibatide plus unfractionated heparin.

8 o P-selectin might be the pathway blocked by unfractionated heparin.

9 t this component of adhesion is inhibited by unfractionated heparin.

10 CR levels was found in patients treated with unfractionated heparin.

11 d more frequently with greater efficacy than unfractionated heparin.

12 ow-molecular-weight heparin or adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin.

13 y is as safe and effective as treatment with unfractionated heparin.

14 low-molecular-weight heparin and $26,361 for unfractionated heparin.

15 as the OR (and 95% CI) for enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin.

16 anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin.

17 aves money relative to therapy with standard unfractionated heparin.

18 ously twice daily, or continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin.

19 in addition to standard anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin.

20 affinity with TGFbeta1 compared to low MW or unfractionated heparin.

21 IV bivalirudin or IV unfractionated heparin.

22 U bolus followed by 500 IU/h for 6 h), or no unfractionated heparin.

23 ation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin.

24 onitoring and titrating anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin.

25 gnificantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin.

26 uction in ischemic events with standard-dose unfractionated heparin.

27 that Robo1 binds more tightly to full-length unfractionated heparin.

28 not been compared with warfarin, aspirin, or unfractionated heparin.

29 eeding, and despite the use of preprocedural unfractionated heparin.

30 ndard management for pulmonary embolism with unfractionated heparin.

31 llowed by 2 groups randomized 5:1 to REG1 or unfractionated heparin.

32 (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most li

33 usted common OR 0.91 [95% CI 0.69-1.21]) and unfractionated heparin (0.81 [0.61-1.08]) led to a non-s

34 ow-molecular-weight heparin (73%, n=487) and unfractionated heparin (15%, n=97).

35 gned to enoxaparin than in those assigned to unfractionated heparin (16.6 percent vs. 19.8 percent, P

36 ing enoxaparin compared with those receiving unfractionated heparin (2.3% versus 1.4%; P=0.022) but s

37 Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct o

38 and systemically anticoagulated with either unfractionated heparin (223 adult and 65 pediatric patie

39 oembolism for no chemical prophylaxis (33%), unfractionated heparin (29%), dalteparin (40%), or infer

40 found in death at 30 days for enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin (3.0% vs 3.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1

41 ism recurred in 12 of 290 patients receiving unfractionated heparin (4.1%), 13 of 298 patients receiv

42 tionated heparin than in those not receiving unfractionated heparin (44 [13%] of 332 vs 22 [7%] of 29

43 ary intervention were randomized to low-dose unfractionated heparin (50 U/kg) or standard-dose unfrac

44 noxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily or unfractionated heparin 5000 U subcutaneously every 12 h

45 ly assigned (1:1:1) to receive moderate-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 1250 I

46 lus followed by 1250 IU/h for 6 h), low-dose unfractionated heparin (5000 IU bolus followed by 500 IU

47 imilar between groups (enoxaparin 11 [1%] vs unfractionated heparin 6 [1%]; p=0.23).

48 , or 0.175 [671] mg/kg/h) or to a control of unfractionated heparin (60 IU/kg intravenous bolus follo

49 All patients received aspirin and unfractionated heparin (60 U/kg bolus; infusion 7 U/kg/h

50 ous thromboembolism), enoxaparin (n=666) and unfractionated heparin (669) were given for 10.5 days (S

51 venous thromboembolism by 43% compared with unfractionated heparin (68 [10%] vs 121 [18%]; relative

52 leeding was higher with enoxaparin than with unfractionated heparin (7 [1%] vs 0; p=0.015).

53 ing was similar with enoxaparin (69 [8%]) or unfractionated heparin (71 [8%]; p=0.83).

54 ctionated heparin (50 U/kg) or standard-dose unfractionated heparin (85 U/kg or 60 U/kg with glycopro

55 ulfated, the inhibitors did not compete with unfractionated heparin alluding to a novel site of inter

56 ctivator over 15 hours (n=30; USAT group) or unfractionated heparin alone (n=29; heparin group).

57 ependently have shown superior efficacy over unfractionated heparin alone in patients with non-ST-ele

58 b/IIIa inhibitors, and 676 patients received unfractionated heparin alone.

59 umatic compression, warfarin, enoxaparin, or unfractionated heparin, alone or in combination.

60 r the abrupt cessation of intravenous (i.v.) unfractionated heparin among patients with acute coronar

61 ) occurred in 12.2 percent of patients given unfractionated heparin and 10.1 percent of those given e

62 n occurred in 14.5 percent of patients given unfractionated heparin and 11.7 percent of those given e

63 red in 4.5 percent of the patients receiving unfractionated heparin and 3.0 percent of those receivin

64 A total of 6055 patients received study unfractionated heparin and a fibrin-specific lytic and h

65 /LV) ratio >/=1.0 were randomized to receive unfractionated heparin and an USAT regimen of 10 to 20 m

66 on on noncovalent complexes formed by intact unfractionated heparin and antithrombin-III, interaction

67 andard antithrombotic treatment is currently unfractionated heparin and aspirin, and in high-risk pat

68 Unfractionated heparin and chemically modified analogs w

69 he pharmacologic methods, including low-dose unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin.

70 IIIa inhibitors), and antithrombotic agents (unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin)

71 oncovalently by charge-charge interaction to unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin.

72 with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin and mortality, pulmonary embolism

73 f Subcutaneous Enoxaparin Versus Intravenous Unfractionated Heparin and Tirofiban Versus Placebo in t

74 These comprise studies with LMWH, unfractionated heparin, and vitamin K antagonists, with

75 ents received aspirin, 325 mg/d; intravenous unfractionated heparin; and tirofiban for 48 hours or un

76 minal coronary revascularization (PTCR) with unfractionated heparin anticoagulation and the effects t

77 ntly considered as clinical replacements for unfractionated heparin are much poorer inhibitors.

78 Aspirin and unfractionated heparin are often used during endovascula

79 MWH) prepared by partial depolymerization of unfractionated heparin are used globally to treat coagul

80 Low-molecular-weight and unfractionated heparins are frequently used to treat ven

81 .3% in the enoxaparin arm versus 9.8% in the unfractionated heparin arm (p = NS).

82 serum from patients enrolled in the placebo/unfractionated heparin arm of the GUSTO IV-ACS trial who

83 n when treated with enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin as adjunctive therapy with fibrin

84 al potential pharmacological advantages over unfractionated heparin as an antithrombotic agent.

85 in should be considered as a replacement for unfractionated heparin as the antithrombin for the acute

86 The LMWHs could potentially replace unfractionated heparin as the antithrombotic agent of ch

87 The OSCS found in contaminated lots of unfractionated heparin, as well as a synthetically gener

88 eight heparin (LMWH) is modestly superior to unfractionated heparin at preventing recurrent DVT and i

89 hylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin at standard doses.

90 safety and efficacy of intravenous aspirin, unfractionated heparin, both, or neither started during

91 ivative has less anticoagulant activity than unfractionated heparin but retains the inherent anti-inf

92 wn that sickle cell adhesion is decreased by unfractionated heparin, but the molecular target of this

93 arin Conjugate (CHC), a compound of multiple unfractionated heparin chains, coats cells with a glycoc

94 itial therapy with dose-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin compared with subcutaneous enoxap

95 A progressive increase in unfractionated heparin concentration results in a linear

96 percutaneous coronary interventions in which unfractionated heparin constituted the control arm.

97 n or sterile saline containing 5000 units of unfractionated heparin (control).

98 ncreased from 77% to 84%, whereas the use of unfractionated heparin decreased from 22% to 8.4% (p < 0

99 w-molecular-weight heparin compared with bid unfractionated heparin decreases pulmonary embolism and

100 isk, P<0.001); 7.5 percent of patients given unfractionated heparin died, as did 6.9 percent of those

101 lar-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pent

102 Ten studies reported unfractionated heparin doses, and 7 of these documented

103 clotting time (ACT) is widely used to guide unfractionated heparin dosing during percutaneous corona

104 Periprocedural intravenous aspirin and unfractionated heparin during endovascular stroke treatm

105 In the Fondaparinux With Unfractionated Heparin During Revascularization in Acute

106 of TAVI has been empirically determined, and unfractionated heparin during the procedure followed by

107 go transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure.

108 e antithrombotic therapy with bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin during this procedure.

109 A, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days.

110 ospitalization is superior to treatment with unfractionated heparin for 48 hours but is associated wi

111 ute VTE treated with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 5 to 11 days, we compared dab

112 received parenteral low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 72 h after diagnosis of pulmo

113 Patients were given unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, as they woul

114 ut the index hospitalization or weight-based unfractionated heparin for at least 48 hours.

115 nitial therapy with open-label enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin for at least 5 days.

116 ficacy and safety of enoxaparin with that of unfractionated heparin for patients with stroke.

117 l infarction have shown it to be superior to unfractionated heparin for preventing a composite of dea

118 no differences in the association of LMWH vs unfractionated heparin for preventing mortality, pulmona

119 ter, followed by a VKA (LMWH and VKA); or 4) unfractionated heparin for the first trimester, followed

120 Subcutaneous LMWH has replaced unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE.

121 preferred drug-based approach over standard unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thro

122 l efficacy and improved safety over standard unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thro

123 w-molecular-weight heparin, enoxaparin, with unfractionated heparin for this purpose.

124 rin, enoxaparin is a suitable alternative to unfractionated heparin for treatment of non-ST-elevation

125 ecurrent DVT and is at least as effective as unfractionated heparin for treatment of pulmonary emboli

126 schaemic stroke, enoxaparin is preferable to unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prophy

127 The hypothesis that unfractionated heparin functions to decrease inflammator

128 6.3% in the enoxaparin group and 6.2% in the unfractionated heparin group (p = NS).

129 occurred in 12.0 percent of patients in the unfractionated heparin group and 9.9 percent of those in

130 The 3 validation cohorts were the unfractionated heparin group from ESSENCE and both enoxa

131 occurred in 6 of 290 patients (2.1%) in the unfractionated heparin group, 5 of 298 patients (1.7%) i

132 ic end points in the REG1 group and 1 in the unfractionated heparin group, with 1 major bleed in the

133 ted heparin group, with 1 major bleed in the unfractionated heparin group.

134 the enoxaparin group and 7.0 percent in the unfractionated-heparin group, but the incidence of bleed

135 1048 patients were randomized to intravenous unfractionated heparin (group A), twice daily low-molecu

136 , a low-molecular-weight GAG C3 derived from unfractionated heparin has been reported to protect agai

137 Unfractionated heparin has been the primary anticoagulan

138 th 184 (9.4%) of 1952 patients randomized to unfractionated heparin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% con

139 ing a hirudin peptide (exosite 1 ligand) and unfractionated heparin, heparin octasaccharide, and gamm

140 ute ischaemic stroke that compared heparins (unfractionated heparin, heparinoids, or low-molecular-we

141 d to determine the constituents of GAGs from unfractionated heparin/HS from various bovine and porcin

142 fated hirugen (IC(50) = 1.2 +/- 0.2 microm), unfractionated heparin (IC(50) = 56.6 +/- 8.4 microg/ml)

143 and recurrent angina relative to intravenous unfractionated heparin in 3171 patients with acute coron

144 ecent trials comparing use of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in ACS have yielded less robust e

145 d be responsible for the reduced efficacy of unfractionated heparin in clinical trials.

146 d controlled trials comparing enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment elevation ACS w

147 ticoagulation with bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing peripheral

148 3 randomized trial compared bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing transfemor

149 Bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with myocardial infar

150 um of ACS, enoxaparin is more effective than unfractionated heparin in preventing the combined end po

151 ular-weight heparin is more efficacious than unfractionated heparin in preventing VTE (0.25% vs 0.68%

152 e improved the efficacy and safety of dosing unfractionated heparin in ST-segment elevation myocardia

153 se findings should be considered when dosing unfractionated heparin in support of fibrinolytic therap

154 MI at 30 days was observed for enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in the overall trial populations

155 ght heparins and heparinoids are superior to unfractionated heparin in the prevention and treatment o

156 safe as dose-adjusted, continuously infused unfractionated heparin in the prevention of recurrent sy

157 ated similar safety with LMWHs compared with unfractionated heparin in the setting of PCI and in conj

158 to be as safe and efficacious as intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of acute venous

159 end-point detector for the determination of unfractionated heparin in whole blood samples via simple

160 omen was reduced by enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in women (15.4% versus 18.3%; P=0

161 This adhesion too was inhibited by unfractionated heparin, in a concentration range that is

162 ntion (PCI) increased bleeding compared with unfractionated heparin, in addition to background therap

163 Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate d

164 Most studies monitored unfractionated heparin inappropriately.

165 ents are receiving preoperatively apart from unfractionated heparin include low-molecular-weight hepa

166 lprostadil; PGE(1)), in addition to low-dose unfractionated heparin, increases the biocompatibility o

167 ycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban with unfractionated heparin independently have shown superior

168 Fondaparinux as compared with usual care (unfractionated heparin infusion or placebo) significantl

169 Forty-one percent of PICUs used regional unfractionated heparin infusion, whereas 35% used citrat

170 Unfractionated heparin is isolated from animal organs, p

171 ylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin is more likely in ICU patients wi

172 Although unfractionated heparin is most widely used anticoagulant

173 Unfractionated heparin is often used as adjunctive thera

174 hylaxis with low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin is recommended in acute ischaemic

175 Unfractionated heparin is used widely; however, control

176 edictable anticoagulant effect than standard unfractionated heparin, is easier to administer, and doe

177 Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin red

178 Parenteral unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, an

179 sion stockings, pneumatic compression boots, unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or

180 icoagulation therapy (initial treatment with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or

181 Compared with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins re

182 blood cells to the endothelium suggest that unfractionated heparin may be useful in preventing painf

183 s a high-dose infusion after PCI (n=3009) or unfractionated heparin monotherapy (n=3007).

184 The use of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin monotherapy in patients without S

185 ous coronary intervention when compared with unfractionated heparin monotherapy was associated with l

186 h a post-PCI high-dose infusion for 2-4 h or unfractionated heparin monotherapy.

187 [0.7% to -0.7%]; P=1.00) when compared with unfractionated heparin monotherapy.

188 gned randomly to eptifibatide + reduced dose unfractionated heparin (n = 298), eptifibatide + reduced

189 Despite the use of a standard weight-based unfractionated heparin nomogram in ST-segment elevation

190 Unfractionated heparin, non-anticoagulant heparin, hepar

191 Our study reveals that unfractionated heparin not only prolongs the onset of cl

192 cular-weight heparins seemed as effective as unfractionated heparin (odds ratio, 0.85 [CI, 0.63 to 1.

193 the effects of inhaled LMWH, enoxaparin, and unfractionated heparin on EIB in subjects with asthma.

194 charides for over a century, whether used as unfractionated heparin or as low molecular weight hepari

195 espiratory failure patients receiving either unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin for anticoagulatio

196 rcutaneous coronary intervention with either unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin monotherapy.

197 All patients received unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin before PCI and a 12

198 mes to one of three antithrombotic regimens: unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin plus a glycoprotein

199 Substitution of unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin with bivalirudin re

200 to receive bivalirudin (n=1928) or heparin (unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin; n=1870) plus a GPI

201 EACS) treated with eptifibatide/reduced-dose unfractionated heparin or eptifibatide/reduced-dose enox

202 Low-dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin i

203 Periprocedural bridging with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin a

204 ologically mediated adverse drug reaction to unfractionated heparin or, less commonly, to low-molecul

205 Either (unfractionated) heparin or low molecular weight heparin

206 tic dosages of low-molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, or fondaparinux at admission.

207 nt of VTE with low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, or fondaparinux in hospitalized

208 enoxaparin and 1.1 in patients randomized to unfractionated heparin (p = 0.15).

209 g were low (3.0% for enoxaparin and 2.2% for unfractionated heparin; P =.13).

210 ty in those taking bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhi

211 ere randomized to bivalirudin (n = 1,800) or unfractionated heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhi

212 Compared with unfractionated heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhi

213 xaparin plus aspirin was more effective than unfractionated heparin plus aspirin in reducing the inci

214 (310 of 5466 patients) randomized to receive unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide (adjusted relat

215 duce the rate of ischemic events relative to unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide but did increas

216 Compared with unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide, the combinatio

217 events and have a safety profile similar to unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide.

218 in mortality with bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibi

219 ortality and cardiac mortality compared with unfractionated heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibi

220 thrombin generation compared to intravenous unfractionated heparin plus vitamin K antagonist, and re

221 ban (bolus and infusion, at 1 of 2 doses) or unfractionated heparin plus, at the time of percutaneous

222 Unfractionated heparin prevents clotting during hemodial

223 both clotting and exogenous heparan sulfate (unfractionated heparin) released substantial amounts of

224 Anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin remains the most common therapy u

225 Unfractionated heparin requirements to maintain a therap

226 Low-dose unfractionated heparin should be investigated as a treat

227 In vitro, low-molecular weight and unfractionated heparins stimulated sFlt-1 release from p

228 ents with UA/NSTEMI were assigned to receive unfractionated heparin (test cohort) and 1953 to receive

229 as well as in patients allocated to receive unfractionated heparin than in those not receiving unfra

230 favorable in-hospital outcomes compared with unfractionated heparin, the current standard of care.

231 25% less frequently in patients who received unfractionated heparin, the incremental cost-effectivene

232 infarction were randomized to enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin, the latter dosed according to th

233 Compared with unfractionated heparin, the modified heparinoids had inh

234 Compared with unfractionated heparin, the treatment difference was 0.2

235 entions and establish a benchmark of optimal unfractionated heparin therapy against which future tria

236 optimal suppression of ischemic events with unfractionated heparin therapy in patients undergoing pe

237 In contrast to unfractionated heparin, this synthetic pentasaccharide t

238 w-molecular-weight heparin (in comparison to unfractionated heparin) thromboprophylaxis lowered pulmo

239 parin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0.3-0.7 IU/mL anti-

240 lactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital

241 Unfractionated heparin (UF-heparin) has been shown to pr

242 were randomized to full-dose TNK and either unfractionated heparin (UFH) (bolus 60 U/kg; infusion 12

243 and clinically after the abrupt cessation of unfractionated heparin (UFH) among patients with acute c

244 Despite their limitations, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and bivalirudin remain stan

245 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and enoxaparin (Enox) were

246 esigned to capture the desired attributes of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight he

247 py caused by antibodies to complexes between unfractionated heparin (UFH) and platelet factor 4 (PF4)

248 demonstrate that enoxaparin was superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) and that tirofiban was bett

249 e most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weigh

250 The combination of anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the use of antiplatelet

251 st effectiveness of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) as adjunctive therapy for f

252 ate whether enoxaparin (ENOX) is superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) as adjunctive therapy for p

253 usted otamixaban regimens or weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin (UFH) before percutaneous coronar

254 Adjunctive unfractionated heparin (UFH) during thrombolytic therapy

255 safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for carotid artery stenting

256 ight heparins are attractive alternatives to unfractionated heparin (UFH) for management of unstable

257 comparative outcomes between bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) have not been well describe

258 S-based studies have found increasing use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in hospitalized patients.

259 icacy and safety of enoxaparin (ENOX) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with ST-segment

260 all efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the SYNERGY (Superior Yi

261 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is a widely used anticoagul

262 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is an effective antithrombo

263 Monitoring unfractionated heparin (UFH) is crucial to prevent over-

264 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is currently used during CP

265 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is frequently administered

266 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the most widely used ant

267 ulants that have a number of advantages over unfractionated heparin (UFH) leading to their increasing

268 mpare the dose response of dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) on the activated clotting t

269 rction patients that received abciximab with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or bivalirudin during percu

270 Patients given unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight hep

271 randomized to bivalirudin (n = 1,800) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus a glycoprotein IIb/III

272 atelet factor 4 (PF4) and polyanions such as unfractionated heparin (UFH) that bind to each other pri

273 neutralized by a range of concentrations of unfractionated heparin (UFH), enoxaparin, 6-O-desulfated

274 ithrombotic regimens involving enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH), in combination with tirofi

275 we characterized the interaction of PF4 with unfractionated heparin (UFH), its 16-, 8-, and 6-mer sub

276 ause of its potential superior efficacy over unfractionated heparin (UFH), its longer activity, and i

277 rn C57BL/6J mice received either therapeutic unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight hepar

278 All patients received aspirin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), or enoxaparin and early ca

279 harmacological and practical advantages over unfractionated heparin (UFH).

280 with anti-P-selectin monoclonal antibody or unfractionated heparin (UFH).

281 lecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin for unfractionated heparin (UFH).

282 normalized ratio (INR) affects the dosing of unfractionated heparin (UFH).

283 occurring in up to 5% of patients exposed to unfractionated heparin (UFH).

284 S) of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) unfractionated heparins (UFHs) from six different manufa

285 ctive and safe alternative anticoagulants to unfractionated heparins (UFHs).

286 lecular weight heparin (LMWH) is superior to unfractionated heparin (UH) for venous thromboembolism (

287 dard of care (low-molecular-weight heparins, unfractionated heparin, vitamin K antagonists or fondapa

288 rd prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1

289 Unfractionated heparin was administered in 33 (87%) and

290 myocardial uptake suppression protocol with unfractionated heparin was performed in all patients.

291 24 h before the examination, and 50 IU/kg of unfractionated heparin were administered intravenously 1

292 One hundred sixty-two patients receiving unfractionated heparin were compared with 133 patients r

293 possibility to study interactions of intact unfractionated heparin with a client protein carried out

294 ctive as the current standard combination of unfractionated heparin with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibi

295 -molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or low dose unfractionated heparin with graded stockings has been va

296 were observed in the 14 trials that compared unfractionated heparin with low-molecular-weight heparin

297 These drugs seem to be as safe as unfractionated heparin with respect to major bleeding co