天津医药 ›› 2021, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (4): 432-435.doi: 10.11958/20202912

• 药物临床观察 • 上一篇    下一篇

利伐沙班与低分子肝素治疗中心静脉置入设备相关性上肢深静脉血栓的疗效比较#br#

王宁1,郭振江2,张媛媛3,郭伟1,崔朝勃1△   

  1. 1河北衡水,哈励逊国际和平医院呼吸内科(邮编053000),2胃肠外科,3药学部
  • 收稿日期:2020-10-21 修回日期:2021-01-14 出版日期:2021-04-15 发布日期:2021-04-16
  • 通讯作者: 崔朝勃 E-mail:zhaobocui2014@163.com
  • 作者简介:王宁(1987),女,硕士,主治医师,主要从事肺血管疾病研究。E-mail:wcc19871107@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    2019年度河北省医学科学研究重点课题计划(20191768)

The comparison of efficacy between rivaroxaban and low molecular weight heparin in the treatment of central venous access device associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

WANG Ning1, GUO Zhen-jiang2, ZHANG Yuan-yuan3, GUO Wei1, CUI Zhao-bo1△   

  1. 1 Department of Respiratory Medicine, 2 Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 3 Department of Pharmacy,
     Harrsion International Peace Hospital, Hengshui 053000, China
  • Received:2020-10-21 Revised:2021-01-14 Published:2021-04-15 Online:2021-04-16
  • Contact: CUI Zhao-bo E-mail:zhaobocui2014@163.com

摘要: 目的 比较利伐沙班与低分子肝素治疗中心静脉置入设备(CVAD)相关性上肢深静脉血栓(UEDVT)的疗效。方法 选取恶性肿瘤合并CVAD相关性UEDVT患者84例为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为低分子肝素组42例和利伐沙班组42例。2组分别给予低分子肝素和利伐沙班进行抗凝治疗,比较随访90 d内2组导管功能失用率、静脉血栓复发率、D-二聚体水平及出血事件发生率。结果 随访期间2组导管功能失用率差异无统计学意义(11.9% vs. 4.8%,χ2=0.623,P>0.05);Kaplan-Meier分析提示2组间累积静脉血栓复发率差异无统计学意义(5.2% vs. 2.9%,Log-rank χ2=0.249,P>0.05),2组间D-二聚体在治疗前及治疗后第1周、第4周、第12周差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。2组间累积出血事件发生率差异无统计学意义(7.1% vs. 12.1%,Log-rank χ2=0.574,P>0.05)。结论 利伐沙班与低分子肝素治疗恶性肿瘤合并CVAD相关性UEDVT的有效性和安全性相似。低分子肝素皮下注射依从性差,利伐沙班口服方便,可作为首选。

关键词: 上肢深静脉血栓, 中心静脉导管, 静脉血栓栓塞, 肝素, 低分子量, 利伐沙班

Abstract: Objective To compare the therapeutic effects of rivaroxaban and low molecular heparin (LMWH) on malignant tumor complicated with central venous access device (CVAD) related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT). Methods A total of 84 malignant tumor patients with CVAD related UEDVT in Harrsion International Peace Hospital were randomly divided into LMWH group (42 cases) and rivaroxaban group (42 cases). The catheter dysfunction rate, recurrent venous thromboembolism, D-dimer level and bleeding events were compared between the two groups in 90 days of follow-up. Results There were no significant differences in the basic data between the two groups before treatment (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the catheter dysfunction rate between the two groups (11.9% vs. 4.8%, χ2=0.623, P>0.05). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in the cumulative recurrence rate between the two groups (5.2% vs. 2.9%, Log-rank χ2=0.249, P>0.05). There were no significant differences in d-dimer levels between the two groups before and after treatment at 1, 4, and 12 weeks (all P>0.05). There was no significant difference in cumulative incidence of bleeding events between the two groups (7.1% vs. 12.1%, Log-rank χ2=0.574, P>0.05). Conclusion Rivaroxaban and LMWH have similar efficacy and safety in the treatment of malignant tumors with CVAD-related UEDVT. LMWH has poor compliance with subcutaneous injection, and rivaroxaban is easy to take orally, which can be used as the first choice.

Key words: upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, central venous catheters, venous thromboembolism, heparin, low-molecular-weight, rivaroxaban

中图分类号: