Active clinical trials for "Venous Thromboembolism"

The primary objective of the trial is to demonstrate non-inferiority of 220 mg oral dabigatran etexilate compared to 40 mg subcutaneous enoxaparin administered once daily. Safety and efficacy will be compared between the treatment groups.

The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of once daily [q.d] subcutaneous [s.c.] injections of Semuloparin sodium (AVE5026) with q.d. s.c. injections of Enoxaparin for the prevention of Venous Thromboembolic Events [VTE] in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the safety of AVE5026 in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, and to document AVE5026 exposure in this population.

The purpose of this study is to assess different doses of a new drug (BAY 59-7939), taken as a tablet, are safe and can help prevent blood clots forming after a hip replacement operation. Patients undergoing hip replacement surgery are at risk of developing blood clots. To reduce this risk treatment to prevent clots forming is routinely given. The current treatments can include injections under the skin or other treatments that need frequent blood tests to monitor levels of drug in the body. Therefore there is a need for new drugs, which are easier to give and need less monitoring.

Patients undergoing surgery, especially hip and knee surgery, are at high risk for VTE. The administration of drugs for thromboprophylaxis, such as heparins, significantly lowers that risk, but heparins have to be applied by injections below the skin. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of BAY 59-7939 with the safety and efficacy of the licensed drug enoxaparin and to find the optimal dose of BAY 59-7939 for the anticipated phase III trials. Enoxaparin, a so-called low molecular weight heparin, is approved and widely used in the area of thromboprophylaxis and was given once daily subcutaneously. In this study 5 different doses of the investigational drug BAY 59-7939 were tested in comparison to Enoxaparin. The following doses of BAY 59-7939 were tested: 2.5 mg twice daily (5 mg total daily dose); 5 mg twice daily (10 mg total daily dose), 10 mg twice daily (20 mg total daily dose), 20 mg twice daily (40 mg total daily dose) and 30 mg twice daily ( 60 mg total daily dose). This study ran for approximately 7 months in a number of countries. In total, 726 patients were enrolled in this study.

The study objective is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral YM150 for 52 weeks in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism.

The goal of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of three different doses ( 110 mg, 150 mg, 220 mg) of BIBR 1048 (Dabigatran etexilate) orally, compared to placebo, in prevention of venous thromboembolism in patient with primary elective total knee replacement surgery, and to evaluate dose-response.

The primary objective of this multicenter, prospective, single arm clinical trial is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Angel® Catheter in subjects at high risk of PE, and with recognized contraindications to standard pharmacological therapy (anticoagulation).

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, event-driven, superiority study for efficacy. Patients with confirmed symptomatic DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis) or PE (Pulmonary embolism) who completed 6 or 12 months of treatment of anticoagulation are eligible for this trial

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent condition, affecting 1.8 per 1,000 people every year. Admission to hospital is one of the main risk factors for VTE, and could account for up to 20% of all VTE, making VTE prevention in admitted patients an appealing option to reduce VTE global burden. The landmark MEDENOX trial and others demonstrated the efficacy of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in reducing a composite outcome of symptomatic and asymptomatic events, the latter accounting for the vast majority of events. Publication of these trials led to the implementation of thromboprophylaxis policies in hospitals, which acceptance has been variable. More recently, the use of thromboprophylaxis has been challenged after the publication of 1) a negative trial that used 'death from any cause' as main outcome, 2) a systematic review showing the lack of a clear efficacy on the risk of pulmonary embolism or death, 3) negative trials using new oral anticoagulants, 4) the last version of the American College of Chest Physicians Guidelines, focusing on symptomatic events only, downgraded its recommendation for thromboprophylaxis in medical patients to a 1B recommendation, restricting its use to patients 'at increased risk of thrombosis' and recommending against the use of thromboprophylaxis in patients at low risk of thrombosis, patients bleeding or at high risk of bleeding. However, a limitation of this interpretation of the data is that in most trials, patients with screened asymptomatic events were treated with anticoagulants, preventing the occurrence of symptomatic events during follow-up. Moreover, subgroup analyses showed that elderly patients were at high risk of thrombosis in these trials, and that LMWH could be particularly efficient in this subgroup of patients. Conversely, their risk of bleeding is also higher than in younger patients and the current trials were not powered to detect a difference in the bleeding risk between groups. Finally, the diagnostic and therapeutic management of VTE is more challenging in the elderly. Therefore, we planned a randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of LMWH for the prevention of symptomatic VTE in elderly patients.

After any surgery, there is a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) in the major veins of the legs and Pulmonary Embolus (PE) in the lungs. These clots are usually prevented by the administration of low-molecular-weight heparin, a blood thinner that prevents clotting. In most surgical specialties like thoracic or vascular surgery, this treatment is used until patients are discharged from the hospital. However, in orthopaedic surgery, there is strong evidence that longer term preventative treatment up to 35 days after hospital discharge helps to reduce VTE occurrences. In thoracic surgery, there is an even greater risk of developing PE because of the surgical stress, the common presence of cancer and direct damage to blood vessels in the lung during surgery. Despite the potential utility, the use of extended VTE prevention has never been evaluated in the thoracic surgery population. If extended treatment prevents clots, more patients will avoid complications related to VTE. There is currently very limited information available on the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing lung cancer resection and the utility of extended thromboprophylaxis (ET) in this patient population. Furthermore, in contrast to patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery where ET has become standard of care, duration of thromboprophylaxis is not well defined in this patient population. Therefore, there is a clear need to systematically evaluate the effects of extended VTE prophylaxis on the incidence of VTE in the post-op population.