FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 349:702-704 August 14, 2003 Number 7 Next

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

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Kearon, C. PubMed Citation

There are two phases in the treatment of patients with symptomatic venous thromboembolism: initial treatment and secondary prophylaxis. Initial therapy usually consists of either subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin or intravenous unfractionated heparin, whereas oral vitamin K antagonists (such as warfarin) are generally prescribed for secondary prophylaxis.

The evidence that an initial five-to-seven-day course of the direct-acting anticoagulant heparin is indeed warranted comes from two clinical trials. The first is the landmark 1960 study by Barritt and Jordan, who compared a combination of heparin and warfarin with no treatment in patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism.¹ The study was stopped prematurely after only . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Source Information

From the Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (H.R.B.); and the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology, Academic Hospital Maastricht, University of Maastricht, Maastricht (M.H.P.) — both in the Netherlands.

Related Letters:

Low-Intensity versus Conventional-Intensity Warfarin for Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism
Huisman M. V., van der Meer F. J.M., van Rooden C. J., Malik V., Kupfer Y., Tessler S., Tran H. A., Brotman D. J., Ridker P. M., Goldhaber S. Z., Glynn R. J., Kearon C., Julian J. A., Ginsberg J. S., Büller H. R., Prins M. H.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2164-2167, Nov 27, 2003. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Zhan, H., Zheng, H. (2007). Fixed-Dose Unfractionated Heparin vs Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism. JAMA 297: 261-262 [Full Text]  
• Aujesky, D., Smith, K. J., Cornuz, J., Roberts, M. S. (2005). Cost-Effectiveness of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism. Chest 128: 1601-1610 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Elliott, C. G., Rubin, L. J. (2004). Mars or Venus -- Is Sex a Risk Factor for Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism?. NEJM 350: 2614-2616 [Full Text]  
• (2004). LOW-INTENSITY WARFARIN IS TOO LOW. Journal Watch Cardiology 2004: 9-9 [Full Text]  
• Huisman, M. V., van der Meer, F. J.M., van Rooden, C. J., Malik, V., Kupfer, Y., Tessler, S., Tran, H. A., Brotman, D. J., Ridker, P. M., Goldhaber, S. Z., Glynn, R. J., Kearon, C., Julian, J. A., Ginsberg, J. S., Buller, H. R., Prins, M. H. (2003). Low-Intensity versus Conventional-Intensity Warfarin for Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism. NEJM 349: 2164-2167 [Full Text]  
• (2003). Low-Intensity Warfarin Is Too Low. Journal Watch Cardiology 2003: 1-1 [Full Text]