Postoperative low molecular weight heparin bridging treatment for patients at high risk of arterial thromboembolism (PERIOP2): double blind randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of dalteparin postoperative bridging treatment versus placebo for patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves when warfarin is temporarily interrupted for a planned procedure. DESIGN: Prospective, double blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 10 thrombosis research sites in Canada and India between February 2007 and March 2016. PARTICIPANTS: 1471 patients aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves who required temporary interruption of warfarin for a procedure. INTERVENTION: Random assignment to dalteparin (n=821; one patient withdrew consent immediately after randomisation) or placebo (n=650) after the procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Major thromboembolism (stroke, transient ischaemic attack, proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, peripheral embolism, or vascular death) and major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria within 90 days of the procedure. RESULTS: The rate of major thromboembolism within 90 days was 1.2% (eight events in 650 patients) for placebo and 1.0% (eight events in 820 patients) for dalteparin (P=0.64, risk difference -0.3%, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 0.8). The rate of major bleeding was 2.0% (13 events in 650 patients) for placebo and 1.3% (11 events in 820 patients) for dalteparin (P=0.32, risk difference -0.7, 95% confidence interval -2.0 to 0.7). The results were consistent for the atrial fibrillation and mechanical heart valves groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves who had warfarin interrupted for a procedure, no significant benefit was found for postoperative dalteparin bridging to prevent major thromboembolism. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00432796.

Venous thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism, comprising both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a chronic illness that affects nearly 10 million people every year worldwide. Strong provoking risk factors for venous thromboembolism include major surgery and active cancer, but most events are unprovoked. Diagnosis requires a sequential work-up that combines assessment of clinical pretest probability for venous thromboembolism using a clinical score (eg, Wells score), D-dimer testing, and imaging. Venous thromboembolism can be considered excluded in patients with both a non-high clinical pretest probability and normal D-dimer concentrations. When required, ultrasonography should be done for a suspected deep vein thrombosis and CT or ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy for a suspected pulmonary embolism. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first-line treatment for almost all patients with venous thromboembolism (including those with cancer). After completing 3-6 months of initial treatment, anticoagulation can be discontinued in patients with venous thromboembolism provoked by a major transient risk factor. Patients whose long-term risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism outweighs the long-term risk of major bleeding, such as those with active cancer or men with unprovoked venous thromboembolism, should receive indefinite anticoagulant treatment. Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is generally warranted in patients undergoing major orthopaedic or cancer surgery. Ongoing research is focused on improving diagnostic strategies for suspected deep vein thrombosis, comparing different DOACs, developing safer anticoagulants, and further individualising approaches for the prevention and management of venous thromboembolism.

Long-term risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism after a first contraceptive-related event: Data from REVERSE cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) after combined oral contraceptive (COC) use is variably reported. We assessed the long-term risk of recurrent VTE in women on COC at the time of a first VTE, in comparison to women without COC use. Our secondary aim assessed the impact of COC use on the recurrent VTE risk in high-risk and low-risk hyperpigmentation, edema, or redness in either leg; D-dimer level ≥250 µg/L; obesity with body mass index ≥30; or older age, ≥65 years (HERDOO2) subgroups. METHODS: The REVERSE cohort study derived the HERDOO2 clinical decision rule to predict recurrent VTE in patients who discontinued anticoagulation after 5-7 months for a first unprovoked VTE. Incidence rates of recurrent VTE among women with and without COC exposure were calculated as the number of recurrent VTE over the number of person-years of follow-up, and Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare risks between groups. RESULTS: The risk of recurrent VTE among COC users was 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-2.9) per patient-year as compared with 3.2% per patient-year (95% CI 2.4-4.3) among nonusers (hazard ratio 0.37; 95% CI 0.1-1.0). Women who were COC users and high risk by HERDOO2 score had a recurrence rate of 3.5% (95% CI 0.4-12.5) compared with 6.1% (95% CI 4.3-8.5) among women who were non-COC users and at high risk by HERDOO2 score (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.1-2.5). CONCLUSIONS: Women who were COC users at the time of an otherwise unprovoked VTE event had a lower VTE recurrence rate during long-term follow-up, compared with nonusers. The use of HERDOO2 rule may help identify higher risk women with COC use.

Management of suspected and confirmed recurrent venous thrombosis while on anticoagulant therapy. What next?

Suspected recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and vexing clinical problem. Confounding the diagnosis of recurrent VTE is a high frequency of residual VTE from prior VTE. The diagnosis of recurrent VTE must be established by comparing current imaging with past imaging to distinguish acute from chronic thrombosis. Next, we must ascertain if non-compliance was the cause of "apparent therapeutic failure" and if non-compliance is at play then re-initiate anticoagulant therapy. Therapeutic failure is relatively uncommon. As such, we must consider underlying causes of therapeutic failures including malignancy and potent thrombophilias. Finally, short term anticoagulant management of therapeutic failures is controversial, and requires further research, but the best current evidence supports a course of full-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (and dose escalated LMWH if failure occurs while on full-dose LMWH).

Predicting the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients despite anticoagulant therapy is high. Clinical factors and pro-coagulant markers may identify high-risk patients and guide decisions about intensifying anticoagulation therapy. AIMS: To evaluate whether serial measurements of pro-coagulant markers can identify patients at high risk of recurrent VTE. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective cohort study, patients with active cancer and acute deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism were enrolled. Patients received standard low-molecular-weight heparin therapy and were followed for 6 months. D-dimer and soluble P-selectin levels were measured at baseline and 1, 4, 5, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment initiation. The association between recurrent VTE and a previously developed risk score, baseline values of the biomarkers, and individual relative changes from baseline were assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 117 cancer patients (22% lung, 21% colorectal, 9% breast) with a mean age of 63 years; 62% had metastatic cancer. Eleven patients (9.4%) developed recurrent VTE, including two cases of fatal pulmonary embolism. VTE recurrence rates were 7.8% (95% CI, 3.1-18) in patients with a risk score of ≤0 points compared to 11% (95% CI, 5.2-20) for those with a score of ≥1 point (hazard ratio 1.3; 95% CI, 0.39-4.5). Baseline P-selectin levels but not D-dimer levels were significantly associated with a high risk of recurrence; the risk was four-fold higher in patients with elevated P-selectin levels than in those with normal levels (hazard ratio 4.0; 95% CI, 1.1-14). Changes in biomarker levels during treatment were not associated with recurrent VTE. CONCLUSION: Baseline P-selectin but not D-dimer levels predict recurrent VTE and may be a valuable addition to clinical prediction rules to select patients for more intensive therapy or closer observation.

Pulmonary Complications of Pregnancy: Venous Thromboembolism.

Unique considerations are needed when diagnosing and treating venous thromboembolism (VTE) in women who are pregnant or postpartum. What are the risks to the fetus, such as drug exposure or the risk of radiation with diagnostic imaging? How does the physiology of pregnancy affect imaging techniques and anticoagulation management? How should anticoagulation be managed around labor and delivery? These questions highlight some of the important considerations needed when managing a pregnant patient with suspected or confirmed VTE. This review outlines what is known about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical risk factors, diagnosis, and therapeutic management of VTE in pregnancy. We also review our preferred diagnostic and treatment algorithm for a pregnant patient with suspected or confirmed VTE.

Risk of venous thromboembolism in pregnant women with essential thrombocythemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women with essential thrombocythemia. Twenty-one trials and 756 pregnancies met inclusion criteria. The absolute VTE risk in the antepartum period is not above a threshold where low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis is clearly indicated or below a threshold where LMWH should be withheld (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.3-4.3). Postpartum, the absolute VTE risk is above a threshold where postpartum LMWH prophylaxis should be considered (4.4%; 95% CI, 1.2-9.5).

Functional and Exercise Limitations After a First Episode of Pulmonary Embolism: Results of the ELOPE Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the frequency and predictors of exercise limitation after pulmonary embolism (PE) and to assess its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and dyspnea. METHODS: One hundred patients with acute PE were recruited at five Canadian hospitals from 2010 to 2013. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was performed at 1 and 12 months. Quality of life (QoL), dyspnea, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), residual clot burden (perfusion scan, CT pulmonary angiography), cardiac function (echocardiography), and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were measured during follow-up. The prespecified primary outcome was percent predicted peak oxygen uptake (Vo2 peak) < 80% at 1-year CPET. RESULTS: At 1 year, 40 of 86 patients (46.5%) had percent predicted Vo2 peak < 80% on CPET, which was associated with significantly worse generic health-related QoL (HRQoL), PE-specific HRQoL and dyspnea scores, and significantly reduced 6MWD at 1 year. Predictors of the primary outcome included male sex (relative risk [RR], 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.1), age (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99 per 1-year age increase), BMI (RR 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.2 per 1 kg/m2 BMI increase), and smoking history (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9), as well as percent predicted Vo2 peak < 80% on CPET at 1 month (RR, 3.8; 95% CI,1.9-7.2), and 6MWD at 1 month (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.7-0.9 per 30-m increased walking distance). Baseline or residual clot burden was not associated with the primary outcome. Mean PFT and echocardiographic results (pulmonary artery pressure, right and left ventricular systolic function) at 1 year were similarly within normal limits in both patients with exercise limitations and those without such limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of patients with PE have exercise limitation at 1 year that adversely influences HRQoL, dyspnea, and walking distance. CPET or 6MWD testing at 1 month may help to identify patients with a higher risk of exercise limitation at 1 year after PE. Based on our results, we believe that the deconditioning that occurs after acute PE could underlie this exercise limitation, but we cannot exclude the fact that this may have been present before PE. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01174628; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Screening for Occult Cancer in Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism may be the earliest sign of cancer. Currently, there is a great diversity in practices regarding screening for occult cancer in a person who has an unprovoked venous thromboembolism. We sought to assess the efficacy of a screening strategy for occult cancer that included comprehensive computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis in patients who had a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial in Canada. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo limited occult-cancer screening (basic blood testing, chest radiography, and screening for breast, cervical, and prostate cancer) or limited occult-cancer screening in combination with CT. The primary outcome measure was confirmed cancer that was missed by the screening strategy and detected by the end of the 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Of the 854 patients who underwent randomization, 33 (3.9%) had a new diagnosis of occult cancer between randomization and the 1-year follow-up: 14 of the 431 patients (3.2%) in the limited-screening group and 19 of the 423 patients (4.5%) in the limited-screening-plus-CT group (P=0.28). In the primary outcome analysis, 4 occult cancers (29%) were missed by the limited screening strategy, whereas 5 (26%) were missed by the strategy of limited screening plus CT (P=1.0). There was no significant difference between the two study groups in the mean time to a cancer diagnosis (4.2 months in the limited-screening group and 4.0 months in the limited-screening-plus-CT group, P=0.88) or in cancer-related mortality (1.4% and 0.9%, P=0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of occult cancer was low among patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism. Routine screening with CT of the abdomen and pelvis did not provide a clinically significant benefit. (Funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; SOME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00773448.).

Treatment of venous thromboembolism.

IMPORTANCE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a common, potentially lethal condition with acute morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To review the etiology of VTE and the 3 phases of VTE treatment: acute (first 5-10 days), long-term (from end of acute treatment to 3-6 months), and extended (beyond 3-6 months). EVIDENCE REVIEW: Cochrane reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials, as well as other clinical trials for topics not covered by the former, were reviewed. Literature searches using broad terms were used to find meta-analyses published in the last 15 years. The ninth edition of the American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Therapy Guidelines was used to supplement the literature search. Guidelines from specialty organizations were consulted when relevant. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health was searched for relevant cost-effectiveness studies. We also searched our own literature database of 8386 articles for relevant research. FINDINGS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) along with with vitamin K antagonists and the benefits and proven safety of ambulation have allowed for outpatient management of most cases of DVT in the acute phase. Development of new oral anticoagulants further simplifies acute-phase treatment and 2 oral agents can be used as monotherapy, avoiding the need for LMWH. Patients with PE can also be treated in the acute phase as outpatients, a decision dependent on prognosis and severity of PE. Thrombolysis is best reserved for severe VTE; inferior vena cava filters, ideally the retrievable variety, should be used when anticoagulation is contraindicated. In general, DVT and PE patients require 3 months of treatment with anticoagulants, with options including LMWH, vitamin K antagonists, or direct factor Xa or direct factor IIa inhibitors. After this time, decisions for further treatment are based on balancing the risk of VTE recurrence, determined by etiology of the VTE (transient risk factors, unprovoked or malignancy associated), against the risk of major hemorrhage from treatment. Better prediction tools for major hemorrhage are needed. Experience with new oral anticoagulants as acute, long-term, and extended therapy options is limited as yet, but as a class they appear to be safe and effective for all phases of treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The mainstay of VTE treatment is anticoagulation, while interventions such as thrombolysis and inferior vena cava filters are reserved for limited circumstances. Multiple therapeutic modes and options exist for VTE treatment with small but nonetheless important differential effects to consider. Anticoagulants will probably always increase bleeding risk, necessitating tailored treatment strategies that must incorporate etiology, risk, benefit, cost, and patient preference. Although great progress has been made, further study to understand individual patient risks is needed to make ideal treatment decisions.

Development of a clinical prediction rule for risk stratification of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the current standard for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Whether treatment strategies should vary according to individual risk of VTE recurrence remains unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study and a validation study in patients with cancer-associated VTE to derive a clinical prediction rule that stratifies VTE recurrence risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: The cohort study of 543 patients determined the model with the best classification performance included 4 independent predictors (sex, primary tumor site, stage, and prior VTE) with 100% sensitivity, a wide separation of recurrence rates, 98.1% negative predictive value, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.16. In this model, the score sum ranged between -3 and 3 score points. Patients with a score ≤ 0 had low risk (≤ 4.5%) for recurrence and patients with a score >1 had a high risk (≥ 19%) for VTE recurrence. Subsequently, we applied and validated the rule in an independent set of 819 patients from 2 randomized, controlled trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin to coumarin treatment in cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: By identifying VTE recurrence risk in cancer patients with VTE, we may be able to tailor treatment, improving clinical outcomes while minimizing costs.

Tinzaparin versus dalteparin for periprocedure prophylaxis of thromboembolic events in hemodialysis patients: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is cleared predominantly by the kidneys and hence there is uncertainty about the safety of its use in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Our primary objective was to compare whether tinzaparin and dalteparin differentially accumulate in HD patients. STUDY DESIGN: Open-label randomized controlled trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: HD patients undergoing periprocedure bridging anticoagulation. INTERVENTION: After warfarin therapy was discontinued, participants were randomly assigned to either 3 daily doses of tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) or dalteparin (200 IU/kg), with 2 intervening HD treatments between the first dose of study drug and their procedure. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was predialysis anti-Xa levels 20 to 24 hours after the third LMWH dose (therapeutic target, <0.2 IU/mL). Secondary outcomes included thromboembolic events and major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 29 eligible and consenting patients, 17 patients received tinzaparin and 12 patients received dalteparin. Mean predialysis anti-Xa level 20-24 hours after the third LMWH dose was 0.37 ± 0.23 (SD) IU/mL for tinzaparin and 0.62 ± 0.41 IU/mL for dalteparin (P = 0.1), indicating clinically important accumulation for both drugs. No invasive procedures were canceled due to study drug accumulation. 4 patients experienced serious adverse events (1 major bleed after traumatic arteriovenous fistula puncture in the tinzaparin arm, 2 non-ST-elevation myocardial infarctions [1 in each group], and 1 upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis [dalteparin group]). LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Dalteparin and tinzaparin significantly accumulate in HD patients at therapeutic doses. "Bridging therapy" with LMWHs at therapeutic doses in HD patients who require temporary interruption of warfarin therapy has the potential for complications and is of uncertain benefit. Other anticoagulation strategies, including no bridging therapy or intravenous heparin, need comparative evaluation in this unique patient population.

Comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials using clinical risk-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: To demonstrate the use of risk-benefit analysis for comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials, we applied this approach to the evaluation of five anticoagulants to prevent thrombosis in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Using a cost-effectiveness approach from a clinical perspective (i.e. risk benefit analysis) we compared thromboprophylaxis with warfarin, low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, fondaparinux or ximelagatran in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, with sub-analyses according to surgery type. Proportions and variances of events defining risk (major bleeding) and benefit (thrombosis averted) were obtained through a meta-analysis and used to define beta distributions. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted and used to calculate incremental risks, benefits, and risk-benefit ratios. Finally, net clinical benefit was calculated for all replications across a range of risk-benefit acceptability thresholds, with a reference range obtained by estimating the case fatality rate - ratio of thrombosis to bleeding. RESULTS: The analysis showed that compared to placebo ximelagatran was superior to other options but final results were influenced by type of surgery, since ximelagatran was superior in total knee replacement but not in total hip replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Using simulation and economic techniques we demonstrate a method that allows comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials with multiple arms by determining the option with the best risk-benefit profile. It can be helpful in clinical decision making since it incorporates risk, benefit, and personal risk acceptance.

Lessons from ximelagatran: issues for future studies evaluating new oral direct thrombin inhibitors for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery.

Venous thromboembolism is a frequent complication of total hip and knee replacement requiring prophylaxis with anticoagulants. A direct thrombin inhibitor-ximelagatran-did not show advantages over other anticoagulants and it was withdrawn from the market; however, new drugs are being developed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify conditions under which ximelagatran might potentially be superior to current standards. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature were screened for randomized trials comparing ximelagatran with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in total hip or knee replacement. Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data. A meta-analysis with especial attention to statistical heterogeneity was conducted. This study suggested that the risk-benefit profile of ximelagatran-and probably other similar agents-depends on the type of surgery, the initial timing of administration, and probably the dose. These issues should be explicitly explored in future trials evaluating new direct thrombin inhibitors.

Systematic review: the Trousseau syndrome revisited: should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism?

BACKGROUND: Identifying previously undiagnosed cancer in patients with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important. Screening for malignant conditions can potentially diagnose more cases of cancer and at earlier stages, thereby preventing cancer-associated morbidity and perhaps mortality. PURPOSE: To summarize the period prevalence of previously undiagnosed cancer at baseline (within 1 month of VTE diagnosis), 6 months, and 12 months after VTE diagnosis and to quantify the additional value of an extensive cancer screening strategy (limited screening plus imaging techniques or tumor marker measurement) at baseline compared with more limited screening (history, physical examination, and simple widely available tests) at baseline. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 36 studies that reported the prevalence of undiagnosed cancer at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months were selected. Fourteen articles and 1 abstract also met inclusion criteria for the assessment of extensive versus limited cancer screening. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data onto standardized forms. DATA SYNTHESIS: The period prevalence of previously undiagnosed cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE was 6.1% (95% CI, 5.0% to 7.1%) at baseline and 10.0% (CI, 8.6% to 11.3%) from baseline to 12 months. An extensive screening strategy using computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis statistically significantly increased the proportion of previously undiagnosed cancer detected from 49.4% (CI, 40.2% to 58.5%) (with limited screening alone) to 69.7% (CI, 61.1% to 77.8%) in patients with unprovoked VTE. LIMITATION: The investigators could not determine complication rates, cost-effectiveness, and difference in morbidity and mortality associated with extensive screening strategies. CONCLUSION: Previously undiagnosed cancer is frequent in patients with unprovoked VTE. Many cases of previously undiagnosed cancer are missed by screening. An extensive cancer screening strategy detects more malignant conditions than does a limited screening strategy.

A randomized trial comparing 2 low-molecular-weight heparins for the outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are now standard therapy for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). No published trials have compared LMWHs, and few studies have examined outpatient therapy for PE. Only tinzaparin sodium has demonstrated superiority to unfractionated heparin in a clinical trial. METHODS: We compared 2 LMWH products, tinzaparin and dalteparin sodium, for the treatment of acute DVT and PE in a randomized, controlled clinical trial of consecutive outpatients presenting to a venous thromboembolism service at 4 tertiary-care hospitals. Patients were treated with subcutaneous tinzaparin sodium, 175 IU/kg every 24 hours, or subcutaneous dalteparin sodium, 200 IU/kg every 24 hours, for at least 5 days. Warfarin sodium therapy was started simultaneously and continued for 90 days. The primary end point was efficacy (recurrence of venous thromboembolism); safety (bleeding) was a composite end point. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four patients received tinzaparin (39 with PE and 215 with DVT) and 251 received dalteparin (51 with PE and 200 with DVT). Most patients had an active malignancy or idiopathic DVT/PE. The outcome events occurred in 11 (4.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2%-7.7%) and 15 patients (5.9%; 95% CI, 3.3%-9.5%) in the dalteparin and tinzaparin groups, respectively, including 9 and 10 recurrences, respectively, and 2 and 5 major hemorrhages, respectively (P = .44). The 95% CI on the difference of -1.5% was -5.3% to 2.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Tinzaparin and dalteparin are safe and effective for the outpatient treatment of DVT or PE. Our finding of no differences between the LMWHs based on major clinical end points means that practical issues can be the deciding factor on which drug to use.