This study aimed to determine whether a weight-adjusted dose of subcutaneous
enoxaparin is as effective and safe as oral
acenocoumarol for the secondary prophylaxis of
pulmonary embolism. Three hundred and eighty consecutive noncancer outpatients hospitalized with an episode of symptomatic
pulmonary embolism selected treatment with
acenocoumarol or
enoxaparin at a dose of 1 mg/kg once daily after being informed of the type of administration and expected frequency of laboratory monitoring for both medicinal products. Endpoints were symptomatic recurrent thromboembolic events evaluated by standard objective testing, and a composite endpoint of recurrent
venous thromboembolism, major
bleeding, and death from any cause. One hundred and ninety-nine patients (52%) chose
acenocoumarol therapy and 181 chose
enoxaparin monotherapy. Four patients in the
enoxaparin group (2.2%) and six patients in the
acenocoumarol group (3%) had an objective thromboembolic recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-4.79; P = 0.64). Nine patients in the
enoxaparin group (5.0%) had a hemorrhagic complication compared with 11 in the
acenocoumarol group (5.5%) (P = 0.81). The hospital
length of stay was shorter with
enoxaparin compared with
acenocoumarol (11 versus 16 days, P = 0.0001).
Enoxaparin is as effective and safe as
acenocoumarol in the
secondary prevention of recurrent thromboembolic disease and is associated with shorter hospitalization.