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 s with planned fibrinolysis to enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin.

5 ensure administration of the optimal dose of unfractionated heparin.

6 ibatide plus enoxaparin or eptifibatide plus unfractionated heparin.

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

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

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

10 anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or 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 affinity with TGFbeta1 compared to low MW or unfractionated heparin.

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

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

17 aves money relative to therapy with standard unfractionated heparin.

18 ously twice daily, or continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin.

19 gnificantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin.

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

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

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

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

24 ndard management for pulmonary embolism with unfractionated heparin.

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

26 who were treated with either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

56 Unfractionated heparin and chemically modified analogs w

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67 .3% in the enoxaparin arm versus 9.8% in the unfractionated heparin arm (p = NS).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

88 In the Fondaparinux With Unfractionated Heparin During Revascularization in Acute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 The hypothesis that unfractionated heparin functions to decrease inflammator

109 6.3% in the enoxaparin group and 6.2% in the unfractionated heparin group (p = NS).

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

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

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

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

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

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

116 1048 patients were randomized to intravenous unfractionated heparin (group A), twice daily low-molecu

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

118 Unfractionated heparin has been the primary anticoagulan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

129 3 randomized trial compared bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing transfemor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

143 Most studies monitored unfractionated heparin inappropriately.

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

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

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

147 Unfractionated heparin is isolated from animal organs, p

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

149 Unfractionated heparin is often used as adjunctive thera

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

151 Unfractionated heparin is used widely; however, control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

161 [0.7% to -0.7%]; P=1.00) when compared with unfractionated heparin monotherapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

170 Substitution of unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin with bivalirudin re

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

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

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

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

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

176 Either (unfractionated) heparin or low molecular weight heparin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

185 (310 of 5466 patients) randomized to receive unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide (adjusted relat

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

187 Compared with unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide, the combinatio

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

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

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

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

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

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

194 Unfractionated heparin requirements to maintain a therap

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

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

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

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

199 25% less frequently in patients who received unfractionated heparin, the incremental cost-effectivene

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

201 Compared with unfractionated heparin, the modified heparinoids had inh

202 Compared with unfractionated heparin, the treatment difference was 0.2

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

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

205 In contrast to unfractionated heparin, this synthetic pentasaccharide t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

218 Adjunctive unfractionated heparin (UFH) during thrombolytic therapy

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

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

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

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

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

224 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is a widely used anticoagul

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

226 Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is frequently administered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

247 24 h before the examination, and 50 IU/kg of unfractionated heparin were administered intravenously 1

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

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

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

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

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