| Hull RD, et al, 1992, USA1 | 432 patients with proximal DVT | Multi-centre randomised double blind clinical trial | Recurrence of VTE | 6/213 v 15/219 (p=0.07; 95% CI for the difference, 0.02% to 8.1%). | |
| UH (219) v LMWH (213) | | Major bleeding | 1/213 patients (0.5%) v 11/219 (5%), reduction in risk of 91% (p=0.006). | |
| | | Death | 10/213 (4.7%) v 21/219 (9.6%) a risk reduction of 51% (p=0.049). | |
| Koopman MM, et al, 1996, Multi national2 | 400 patients with symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis | PRCT | Recurrent VTE (within 6 months) | 17/198(8.6%) v 14/202 (6.9%). | Unblinded |
| UH in hospital (198) | | Major bleeding (within 3 months) | 4/198 v 1/202. | |
| LMWH at home (202) | | Quality of life (at 1, 12 and 24 weeks) | Physical activity and social functioning better in LMWH group. | |
| | | Average length of stay | In the LMWH group was 2.7 days v 8.1 in the UH group. | |
| Levine M, et al, 1996, Canada3 | 500 patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis | PRCT | Recurrent VTE | 17/253 (6.7%) v 13/247 (5.3%). | Two thirds of potential patients excluded |
| UH in hospital (253) v LMWH primarily at home (247) | | Major bleeding | 3/253 (2%) v 5/247 (2%). | |
| | | Costs | 6.5 days in hospital v 1.1 days. 120 (49%) patients in LWMH were not admitted at all. | |
| Belcaro G, et al, 1999, Italy4 | 294/589 patients with acute proximal UH in hospital (98) v treatment with LMWH primarily at home or in the hospital (97) v treatment with SCHep given directly at home (99) | PRCT | Recurrence/extension of DVT | 6.2% v 6.1% v 7.1%. | 264 (44%) of potential patients excluded |
| | | Bleeding | Bleeds were all minor and mostly during hospital stay | |
| | | Length of stay | 5.4 ± 1.2 v 1.2 ± 1.4 days (there was no hospital stay in the SCHep group) | |
| | | Treatment costs | Average treatment costs in 3 months in the UH group were considered to be 100%. In comparison costs in the LMWH group was 28% of the UH and 8% in the SCHep group | |