Tehran University Medical Journal

---

Background: Despite the overwhelming progress that has been accomplished in the prevention of mortality due to cardiovascular disease, coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the world.

The aim of this study was to compare of the effects of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) on major clinical events, including mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and recurrent angina, as well as bleeding in patients with non ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). We also studied the need for coronary angiography and revascularization (PCI or CABG) in these patients.

Method: Two-hundred patients were enrolled in this study, 100 of whom received intravenous UFH (an initial bolus of 5000 U followed by continuous infusion of 1000 U/h) and 100 received enoxaparin subcutaneous injections of 1mg/kg twice daily for a minimum of 72 h. During their admission we recorded data regarding death, MI, recurrent angina, need for angiography and revascularization, and major and minor bleeding.

Results: The incidence of recurrent angina, total mortality and the need for revascularization were significantly lower in patients receiving enoxaparin compared to those receiving UFH, at 17% vs. 39% (p=0.002), 0% vs. 3% (p=0.035), 14% vs. 33% (p=0.001), respectively. However, there was no significant difference regarding the incidence of MI, major bleeding and cardiac death between the two groups.

Conclusions: This study showed that, in patients with NSTEACS, enoxaparin was superior to UFH regarding the prevention of major in-hospital clinical events, especially recurrent angina and the need for revascularization. We therefore recommend enoxaparin as an alternative antithrombotic agent to UFH in patients with NSTEACS.

---

Background: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH) is recommended as the first-line treatment in patients with active cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE), but many patients prefer to take oral anticoagulants and non-injectable forms with more reasonable price. Venous thromboembolism is a very common comorbidity in patients with cancer. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin in patients with cancer and VTE.
Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 50 patients with non-hematologic cancer and deep vein thrombosis (DVP) or pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) enrolled into Imam Khomeini hospital, from November 2019 to March 2020 in Ahvaz. The participants randomly assigned in two treatment groups (25 patients in each group) of rivaroxaban (15 mg every 12 hours for the first three weeks and then orally at 20 mg daily) or enoxaparin (1 mg/kg by subcutaneous injection every 12 hours) and followed for 6 months to evaluate the efficacy, complications and safety (incidence of recurrent VTE, major bleeding and deaths) of these therapies in Ahvaz.

Results: The three most common cancer diagnoses were breast (n=11, 22%), colon (n=10, 20%), and lung (n=7, 14%). Major bleeding at 6 months was only seen in one patient (4%) in the enoxaparin group and did not occur in the rivaroxaban group (P>0.05). Minor bleeding occurred in 1 patient (4%) in the rivaroxaban group and did not occur in the enoxaparin group (P>0.05). One patient in the enoxaparin group died because of fever and neutropenia. The prevalence of DVT and PTE in cancer patients was not significantly different based on patient age (P=0.154), gender (P=0.430), BMI (P=0.490), underlying disease (P=0.294), smoking (P=0.955), type of cancer (P=0.527), and metastatic cancer (P=0.280). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the efficacy of rivaroxaban is not less than that of enoxaparin and therefore can be a potential option for patients with non-hematologic cancer and VTE. However, further randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.