The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Correspondence
PreviousPrevious
Volume 349:2164-2167 November 27, 2003 Number 22
NextNext

Low-Intensity versus Conventional-Intensity Warfarin for Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism

Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-Purchase this article

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited
-E-mail When Letters Appear

More Information
-Related Article
by Büller, H. R.
-Related Article
by Kearon, C.
-PubMed Citation
To the Editor: In the study by Kearon et al. (Aug. 14 issue),1 which compared low-intensity warfarin with conventional-intensity warfarin for long-term prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism, conventional-intensity therapy (target international normalized ratio [INR], 2.0 to 3.0) resulted in no more major bleeding complications than low-intensity therapy (target INR, 1.5 to 1.9). The rate of major bleeding in the conventional-intensity–therapy group (0.9 percent per person-year) was substantially lower than the rates in previous trials, which ranged from 2.0 to 3.8 percent per person-year.2,3,4 Selection of patients with an a priori lower risk of bleeding might have been a cause of . . . [Full Text of this Article]



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.