Urgent Care, Emergency Medicine
Dr. Tom Colletti
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to review which option is best in treatment and prevention of subsequent emboli after initial treatment for emboli and examine which has less risks and less association with reoccurrence.
Method: Pubmed and Google scholar search was performed. Using “and” and “in” as a connector for the comparisons, “low molecular weight heparin” and “Unfractionated heparin” in “pulmonary embolism” was typed into the search. To narrow down further, the words “treatment”, “acute”, and “recurrence” were also added.
Results: From the search, 9,210 articles were found raging from years 2011-2021. Results included major article, journals and books based on the topic.
Conclusion: From these studies, it can be inferred that in patients with acute and symptomatic pulmonary embolism, LMWH may be used safely and successfully when given a once a day dosage2. All these studies point to the fact that LMWH has and advantage over UFH due to it being more cost effective in a six day trial of LMWH at $37 and UFH at $7128, and less thrombosis, less bleeding, and less recurrence.2,5,6,8
Keywords: Low Molecular Weight Heparin, Unfractionated Heparin, Emboli
Pena A. Use of Low Molecular Weight Heparin vs Unfractionated Heparin in reducing Emboli Risk following initial episode. Which reigns better?. University of Lynchburg DMSc Doctoral Project Assignment Repository. 2021; 3(2).
Available when accessing via a campus IP address or logged in with a University of Lynchburg email address.
Off-campus users can also use 'Off-campus Download' button above for access.