| mechanism | treatment | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
|---|
| antithrombotics | candesartan | versus antithrombotics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Andreozzi (200 vs 100), 1996 | desmin 200 vs desmin 100 | | | | | Andreozzi (desmin SC vs 100), 1996 | desmin SC vs desmin 100 | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Andreozzi (200 vs 100), 1996 | Dermatan sulfate (Desmin) (100 mg twice s.c.)y8 (n=-9) vs. Desmin (100
mg once daily s.c.) (n=-9) | Patients with ST or varicophlebitis of the lower limbs | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Andreozzi (desmin SC vs 100), 1996 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | coumadin | versus antithrombotics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Belcaro (coumadin vs low dose hep), 1999 | coumadin vs low dose heparin | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Belcaro (coumadin vs low dose hep), 1999 | coumadin (n=-9) vs. low-dose subcutaneous heparin (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | defibrotide | versus antithrombotics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Belcaro, 1990 | defibrotide vs low dose heparin | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Belcaro, 1990 | Defibrotide (n=-9) vs. low-dose
heparin (n=-9) | with ST | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | Diclofenac | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Nocker (diclofenac), 1991 | Diclofenac vs placebo | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Nocker (diclofenac), 1991 | Diclofenac gel (1 g diclofenac/100 g gel) for 3 weeks (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | patients with unilateral thrombophlebitis of the legs | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | enoxaparin | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Stenox (enoxaparin 40mg), 2003 | enoxaparin vs placebo | | | | | STENOX (enoxaparin 1.5mg/hg), 2003 | enoxaparin vs placebo | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Stenox (enoxaparin 40mg), 2003 | LMWH (enoxaparin) (s.c. 40 mg) for 8-12 days (n=-9) vs. placebo. (n=-9) | patients with ST of at least 5 cm on ultrasonography examination | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | STENOX (enoxaparin 1.5mg/hg), 2003 | enoxaparin (s.c. 1.5 mg/kg)for 8-12 days (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | patients with St of at least 5 cm on ultrasonography examination | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | fondaparinux | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| CALISTO, 2010 | fondaparinux vs placebo | symptomatic
thromboembolism or death 0.15 [0.08; 0.26] Deep-venous thrombosis 0.17 [0.05; 0.56] Venous thromboembolism 0.15 [0.04; 0.50] | | PE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] major bleeding 1.00 [0.06; 15.95] |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| CALISTO, 2010 | fondaparinux 2.5mg up to 45 days (n=1502) vs. placebo (n=1500) | patients with acute symptomatic isolated superficial thrombophlebitis of the lower limbs | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1502/1500 Primary endpoint: symptomatic venous thromboembolism, death FU duration: 45 days (77d) |
|
| antithrombotics | heparin | versus antithrombotics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Gorski, 2005 | heparin spraygel vs clexane | | | | | Katzenschlager, 2003 | liposomal heparin-spraygel vs enoxaparin | | | | | Marchiori, 2002 | heparin vs low dose UFH | | | | | Belcaro (hep vs defibrotide), 1990 | heparin vs | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Gorski, 2005 | Topical liposomal heparin spraygel (4 puffs of 458 IU three times daily) (n=-9) vs. clexane (40 mg once daily) (n=-9) | patients with symptomatic superficial venous thrombosis confirmed by ultrasonography with first
symptoms not earlier than 72 hours | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Katzenschlager, 2003 | Topical liposomal heparin-spraygel (lipohep 2400 IU/g, 4 spray puffs three times daily) for 7-14 days (n=-9) vs. enoxaparin (40 mg s.c.) for 7-14 days (n=-9) | with ST diagosed by ultrasound with signs and symptoms lasting less than 72 hoursdaily)o | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Marchiori, 2002 | UFH (s.c. 12500 IU for one week then 10000 IU) for 4 weeks (n=-9) vs. UFH (5000 IU) (n=-9) | patients with ST of the great saphenous vein | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Belcaro (hep vs defibrotide), 1990 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | heparin | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Belcaro (hep vs no hep), 1989 | heparin vs no treatment | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Belcaro (hep vs no hep), 1989 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | nadroparin | versus antithrombotics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Titon (nadroparin 0.6ml vs naproxen), 1994 | nadroparin vs naproxene | | | | | Vesalio, 2005 | nadroparin fixed-dose vs nadroparin weight-adjusted | | | | | Titon (nadroparin 61.5 IU anti-Xa/kg vs naproxen), 1994 | nadroparin vs naproxene | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Titon (nadroparin 0.6ml vs naproxen), 1994 | nadroparin (s.c. 0.6 ml for 6150 IU anti-Xa once daily)j (n=-9) vs. Naproxene (oral 500 mg once daily) (n=-9) | patients with ST | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Vesalio, 2005 | LMWH (nadroparin) body-weight adjusted (full dose for 10 days followed by half dose for 20 additional days)àĆ (n=-9) vs. nadroparin (2850 anti-Xa IU) for 30 days (n=-9) | patients with superficial vein thrombosis of the great saphenous vein with the thrombosis extending
up to 3 cm from the sapheno-femoral junction | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Titon (nadroparin 61.5 IU anti-Xa/kg vs naproxen), 1994 | nadroparin (s.c. 0.6 ml for 6150 IU anti-Xa once daily)j (n=-9) vs. Naproxene (oral 500 mg once daily) (n=-9) | patients with ST | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | Nimesulide | versus antithrombotics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Ferrari, 1992 | Nimesulide vs diclofenac | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Ferrari, 1992 | Nimesulide 100 mg twice dailyitm (n=-9) vs. diclofenac sodium 50 mg twice daily for 10 days (n=-9) | with acute ST | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
| antithrombotics | UFH | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Belcaro (prophylactic UFH vs no), 1999 | Prophylactic UFH vs no treatment | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Belcaro (prophylactic UFH vs no), 1999 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
