pathology | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
peripheral vascular diseases | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
| acenocoumarol vs placebo | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
APIC, 1989 | Acenocoumarol INR 2-4.5 (n=72) vs. Placebo (n=74) | AOMI syade II | Simple aveugle Factorial plan Sample size: 72/74 Primary endpoint: Périmètre de marche FU duration: 1 an |
|
thrombosis prevention | versus Low molecular weight heparin No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Hamulyak, 1994 | Acenocoumarol vs Nadroparin | | | DVT 1.18 [0.81; 1.70] | Samama, 2001 | Acenocoumarol vs Reviparin | | | DVT 1.35 [0.70; 2.61] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Hamulyak, 1994 | Acenocoumarol (n=342) vs. Nadroparin 60 anti-Xa IU /kg x1 (n=330) | THR or TKR (stratified) | single blind Sample size: 342/330 Primary endpoint: FU duration: Day 10 ± 2 | Samama, 2001 | Acenocoumarol (n=645) vs. Reviparin 4200 anti-Xa IU x1 (n=644) | THR | Open Sample size: 645/644 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 weeks |
|
thrombosis prevention | versus unfractionated heparin No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
| Acenocoumarol vs unfractionated heparin | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
van Geloven, 1977 | Acenocoumarol (n=11) vs. UFH 4000 ·x2 (n=11) | THR | double blind Sample size: 11/11 Primary endpoint: FU duration: NA |
|