Search

Background: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate. Results: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). Conclusion: Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The anticoagulant treatment and clinical efficacy of heparin in sepsis remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the clinical efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in adult septic patients. Method: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, WEIPU database, CNKI database, WANFANG database was performed from inception to January 2021. We included Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the main outcome was 28 d mortality. Data analysis was performed with Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3 software. The meta-analysis included 2617 patients from 15 RCTs. Results: Comparing to control group, UFH could reduce 28 d mortality (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94) especially for patient with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) > 15, (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.96). In UFH group, the platelet (PLT) (MD: 9.18; 95% CI: 0.68 to 17.68) was higher, the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) was shorter (MD: -8.01; 95% CI: − 13.84 to − 2.18) and the prothrombin time (PT) results (P > 0.05) failed to reach statistical significance. UFH decreased multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) incidence (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.84), length of stay (LOS) in ICU (MD: -4.94; 95% CI: − 6.89 to − 2.99) and ventilation time (MD: -3.01; 95% CI: − 4.0 to − 2.02). And UFH had no adverse impact on bleeding (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.23). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that UFH may reduce 28 d mortality and improve the clinical efficacy in sepsis patients without bleeding adverse effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are commonly used for preventing venous thrombosis of the lower extremity in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. Although, LMWH is the most commonly used drug, it has yet to be established whether it is more effective and safer than UFH. Further, a comparison of the effectiveness of LMWH in preventing thrombosis at different locations and different degrees of spinal cord injury has also not been clearly defined. Materials and methods: Cohort studies comparing the use of LMWH and UFH in the prevention of lower limb venous thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury were identified using PubMed. The risk of bias and clinical relevance of the included studies were assessed using forest plots. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The main results of the study were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: A total of five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Four studies compared the effectiveness and safety of LMWH and UFH in preventing thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injury. No significant differences were found between the therapeutic effects of the two drugs, and the summary RR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.42–4.16; P = 0.63). There was also no significant difference in the risk of bleeding between the two medications, and the aggregate RR was 0.78 (95% CI 0.55–1.12; P = 0.18). When comparing the efficacy of LMWH in preventing thrombosis in different segments and different degrees of spinal cord injury, no significant differences were found. Conclusions: The results of this analysis show that compared with UFH, LMWH has no obvious advantages in efficacy nor risk prevention, and there is no evident difference in the prevention of thrombosis for patients with injuries at different spinal cord segments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have been increasingly used in the treatment of end-stage heart failure. While warfarin has been uniformly recommended in the long-term as anticoagulation strategy, no clear recommendation exists for the post-operative period. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of enoxaparin in the immediate and early postoperative period after LVAD implantation.Methods: This is a two-center, retrospective analysis of 250 consecutive patients undergoing LVAD implantation between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients were bridged postoperatively to therapeutic INR by either receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Patients were followed while inpatient and for 3 months after LVAD implantation. The efficacy outcome was occurrence of first and subsequent cerebrovascular accident while safety outcome was the occurrence of bleeding events. Length of stay (LOS) was also assessed.Results: Two hundred fifty and 246 patients were analyzed for index admission and 3-month follow up respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in CVA (OR = 0.67; CI = 0.07-6.39, P = 0.73) or bleeding events (OR = 0.91; CI = 0.27-3.04, P = 0.88) during index admission. Similarly, there were no differences at 3 months in either CVAs or bleeding events (OR = 0.85; 0.31-2.34; p = 0.76). No fatal events occurred during the study follow-up period. Median LOS was significantly lower (4 days; p = 0.03) in the LMWH group.Conclusions: LMWH in the immediate and early postoperative period after LVAD implantation appears to be a concurrently safe and efficacious option allowing earlier postoperative discharge and avoidance of recurrent hospitalizations due to sub-therapeutic INR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale and warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential, for COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). COVID-19 ARDS displays the typical features of diffuse alveolar damage with extensive pulmonary coagulation activation resulting in fibrin deposition in the microvasculature and formation of hyaline membranes in the air sacs. Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 who manifest severe disease have high levels of inflammatory cytokines in plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and significant coagulopathy. There is a strong association between the extent of the coagulopathy and poor clinical outcomes.The anti-coagulant actions of nebulised UFH limit fibrin deposition and microvascular thrombosis. Trials in patients with acute lung injury and related conditions found inhaled UFH reduced pulmonary dead space, coagulation activation, microvascular thrombosis and clinical deterioration, resulting in increased time free of ventilatory support. In addition, UFH has anti-inflammatory, mucolytic and anti-viral properties and, specifically, has been shown to inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent its entry into mammalian cells, thereby inhibiting pulmonary infection by SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that inhaled UFH safely improves outcomes in other inflammatory respiratory diseases and also acts as an effective mucolytic in sputum-producing respiratory patients. UFH is widely available and inexpensive, which may make this treatment also accessible for low- and middle-income countries.These potentially important therapeutic properties of nebulised UFH underline the need for expedited large-scale clinical trials to test its potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients receiving chronic hemodialysis treatments are at a higher risk of fracture compared to the general population. While the use of heparin during dialysis is crucial to avoid thrombosis of the extracorporeal circuit, the association of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the risk of osteoporotic fracture has been shown for many years. However, this association was not as clear for low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and the few collected data originated from studies among pregnant women. Our aim was to measure osteoporotic fracture rate among hemodialysis patients and to evaluate the association of LMWH compared to UFH in hemodialysis.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on data extracted from the RAMQ and Med-Echo databases from January 2007 to March 2013 with patients chronically hemodialyzed in 21 participating centers. Incidence rates for each fracture sites were measured per 1000 patient-year (p-y) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Osteoporotic fracture risk for a first event with LMWH compared to UFH was estimated using a cox proportional hazard model using demographics, comorbidities and drug use as covariates.Results: 4796 patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis were identified. The incidence rate for all fracture sites was 22.7 /1000 p-y (95% CI: 19.6-26.1) and 12.8 /1000 p-y (95% CI: 10.5-15.4) for hip and femur fractures. We found a similar risk of osteoporotic fracture for LMWH compared to UFH (adjusted HR = 1.01; 95%CI: 0.72-1.42). Age and malignancy increased the risk of fracture while cerebrovascular disease decreased the risk of fracture.Conclusions: Compared to UFH, LMWH did not change the risk of osteoporotic fracture when used for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation in chronic hemodialysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a complex interplay between inflammatory response and coagulation in sepsis. Heparin is used as a recognized anticoagulant and possesses multiple biological properties that possibly affect sepsis. This study aimed to determine the possible signaling pathways involved in the anti-inflammatory effects of unfractionated heparin (UFH) on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HPMECs). Methods: HPMECs were transfected with siRNA targeting IκB-α. Cells were treated with UFH (0.01 U/ml~ 10 U/ml) 15 min before adding LPS (10 μg/ml). We detected the markers of systemic inflammatory response. Release of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8 were evaluated at 3 h by ELISA and at 1 h by qRT-PCR. After 1 h, nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) as well as phosphorylated inhibitor κB-α (IκB-α), signal transducer and activator of transcription-3 (STAT3) and ERK1/2, JNK, p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) expressions were evaluated by Western blot. DNA binding was conducted to further prove the activation of NF-κB pathway. Results: In HPMECs, UFH obviously inhibited LPS-stimulated production of IL-6 and IL-8, especially in 10 U/ml. UFH inhibited LPS-induced phosphorylation of IκB-α, ERK1/2, JNK, p38 MAPK and STAT3. UFH also suppressed LPS-stimulated nuclear translocation of NF-κB. Importantly, transfection with siRNA targeting IκB-α induced more obvious inflammatory response. UFH suppressed cytokines production and phosphorylation of different signaling pathways in IκB-α silencing cells. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that UFH exerts the anti-inflammatory effects on LPS-stimulated HPMECs by different signaling pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endothelial barrier dysfunction is central to the pathogenesis of sepsis-associated acute lung injury (ALI). Microtubule (MT) dynamics in vascular endothelium are crucial for the regulation of endothelial barrier function. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) possesses various biological activities, such as anti-inflammatory activity and endothelial barrier protection during sepsis.Methods: Here, we investigated the effects and underlying mechanisms of UFH on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced endothelial barrier dysfunction. C57BL/6 J mice were randomized into vehicle, UFH, LPS and LPS + UFH groups. Intraperitoneal injection of 30 mg/kg LPS was used to induce sepsis. Mice in the LPS + UFH group received intravenous UFH 0.5 h prior to LPS injection. Human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HPMECs) were cultured for analyzing the effects of UFH on LPS-induced and nocodazole-induced hyperpermeability, F-actin remodeling, and LPS-induced p38 MAPK activation.Results: UFH pretreatment significantly attenuated LPS-induced pulmonary histopathological changes, and increased the lung W/D ratio and Evans blue accumulation in vivo. Both in vivo and in vitro studies showed that UFH pretreatment blocked the LPS-induced increase in guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF-H1) expression and myosin phosphatase target subunit 1 (MYPT1) phosphorylation, and microtubule (MT) disassembly in LPS-induced ALI mouse model and human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HPMECs). These results suggested that UFH ameliorated LPS-induced endothelial barrier dysfunction by inhibiting MT disassembly and GEF-H1 expression. In addition, UFH attenuated LPS-induced hyperpermeability of HPMECs and F-actin remodeling. In vitro, UFH pretreatment inhibited LPS-induced increase in monomeric tubulin expression and decrease in tubulin polymerization and acetylation. Meanwhile, UFH ameliorates nocodazole-induced MTs disassembly and endothelial barrier dysfunction.Additionally, UFH decreased p38 phosphorylation and activation, which was similar to the effect of the p38 MAPK inhibitor, SB203580.Conclusions: UFH exert its protective effects on pulmonary microvascular endothelial barrier dysfunction via microtubule stabilization and is associated with the p38 MAPK pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) have been extensively studied and became the treatment of choice for several indications including pulmonary embolism. While their efficacy in hemodialysis is considered similar to unfractionated heparin (UFH), their safety remains controversial mainly due to a risk of bioaccumulation in patients with renal impairment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of LMWH when compared to UFH for extracorporeal circuit (ECC) anticoagulation.Methods: We used Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Trip database and NICE to retrieve relevant studies with no language restriction. We looked for controlled experimental trials comparing LMWH to UFH for ECC anticoagulation among end-stage renal disease patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Studies were kept if they reported at least one of the following outcomes: bleeding, lipid profile, cardiovascular events, osteoporosis or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Two independent reviewers conducted studies selection, quality assessment and data extraction with discrepancies solved by a third reviewer. Relative risk and 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean weighted difference (MWD) with 95% CI was used to pool continuous variables.Results: Seventeen studies were selected as part of the systematic. The relative risk for total bleeding was 0.76 (95% CI 0.26-2.22). The WMD calculated for total cholesterol was -28.70 mg/dl (95% CI -51.43 to -5.98), a WMD for triglycerides of -55.57 mg/dl (95% CI -94.49 to -16.66) was estimated, and finally LDL-cholesterol had a WMD of -14.88 mg/dl (95% CI -36.27 to 6.51).Conclusions: LMWH showed to be at least as safe as UFH for ECC anticoagulation in chronic hemodialysis. The limited number of studies reporting on osteoporosis and HIT does not allow any conclusion for these outcomes. Larger studies are needed to evaluate properly the safety of LMWH in chronic hemodialysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unfractionated heparin is the most common anticoagulant used in haemodialysis (HD), although it has many potential adverse effects. Citrate dialysate (CD) has an anticoagulant effect which may allow reduction in cumulative heparin dose (CHD) compared to standard acetate dialysate (AD). Methods: This double-blinded, randomised, cross-over trial of chronic haemodialysis patients determines if CD allows reduction in CHD during HD compared with AD. After enrolment, intradialytic heparin is minimised during a two-week run-in period using a standardised protocol based on a visual clotting score. Patients still requiring intradialytic heparin after the run-in period are randomised to two weeks of HD with AD followed by two weeks of CD (Sequence 1) or two weeks of HD with CD followed by two weeks of AD (Sequence 2). The primary outcome is the change in CHD with CD compared with AD. Secondary outcomes include metabolic and haemodynamic parameters, and dialysis adequacy. Discussion: This randomised controlled trial will determine the impact of CD compared with AD on CHD during HD. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01466959 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global EINSTEIN DVT and PE studies compared rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) with enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist therapy and demonstrated non-inferiority for efficacy and superiority for major bleeding. Owing to differences in targeted anticoagulant intensities in Japan, Japanese patients were not enrolled into the global studies. Instead, a separate study of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) in Japanese patients was conducted, which compared the Japanese standard of care with a reduced dose of rivaroxaban. Methods: We conducted an open-label, randomized trial that compared 3, 6, or 12 months of oral rivaroxaban alone (10 mg twice daily or 15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 15 mg once daily) with activated partial thromboplastin time-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) followed by warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0; range 1.5-2.5) in patients with acute, objectively confirmed symptomatic DVT and/or PE. Patients were assessed for the occurrence of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolic events or asymptomatic deterioration and bleeding. Results: Eighty-one patients were assigned to rivaroxaban and 19 patients to UFH/warfarin. Three patients were excluded because of serious non-compliance issues. The composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolic events or asymptomatic deterioration occurred in 1 (1.4%) rivaroxaban patient and in 1 (5.3%) UFH/warfarin patient (absolute risk difference, 3.9% [95% confidence interval, -3.4-23.8]). No major bleeding occurred during study treatment. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 6 (7.8%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (5.3%) patient in the UFH/warfarin group. Conclusions: The findings of this study in Japanese patients with acute DVT and/or PE suggest a similar efficacy and safety profile with rivaroxaban and control treatment, consistent with that of the worldwide EINSTEIN DVT and PE program. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01516840 and NCT01516814. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is widely used as a reversible anti-coagulant in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). However, the pharmacokinetic characteristics of UFH in CPB surgeries remain unknown because of the lack of means to directly determine plasma UFH concentrations. The aim of this study was to establish a pharmacokinetic model to predict plasma UFH concentrations at the end of CPB for optimal neutralization with protamine sulfate. Methods: Forty-one patients undergoing CPB during cardiac surgery were enrolled in this observational clinical study of UFH pharmacokinetics. Patients received intravenous injections of UFH, and plasma anti-FIIa activity was measured with commercial anti-FIIa assay kits. A population pharmacokinetic model was established by using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM) software and validated by visual predictive check and Bootstrap analyses. Estimated parameters in the final model were used to simulate additional protamine administration after cardiac surgery in order to eliminate heparin rebound. Plans for postoperative protamine intravenous injections and infusions were quantitatively compared and evaluated during the simulation. Results: A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with first-order elimination provided the best fit. Subsequent simulation of postoperative protamine administration suggested that a lower-dose protamine infusion over 24 h may provide better elimination and prevent heparin rebound than bolus injection and other infusion regimens that have higher infusion rates and shorter duration. Conclusion: A two-compartment model accurately reflects the pharmacokinetics of UFH in Chinese patients during CPB and can be used to explain postoperative heparin rebound after protamine neutralization. Simulations suggest a 24-h protamine infusion is more effective for heparin rebound prevention than a 6-h protamine infusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is widely used as a reversible anti-coagulant in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). However, the pharmacokinetic characteristics of UFH in CPB surgeries remain unknown because of the lack of means to directly determine plasma UFH concentrations. The aim of this study was to establish a pharmacokinetic model to predict plasma UFH concentrations at the end of CPB for optimal neutralization with protamine sulfate. Methods Forty-one patients undergoing CPB during cardiac surgery were enrolled in this observational clinical study of UFH pharmacokinetics. Patients received intravenous injections of UFH, and plasma anti-FIIa activity was measured with commercial anti-FIIa assay kits. A population pharmacokinetic model was established by using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM) software and validated by visual predictive check and Bootstrap analyses. Estimated parameters in the final model were used to simulate additional protamine administration after cardiac surgery in order to eliminate heparin rebound. Plans for postoperative protamine intravenous injections and infusions were quantitatively compared and evaluated during the simulation. Results A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with first-order elimination provided the best fit. Subsequent simulation of postoperative protamine administration suggested that a lower-dose protamine infusion over 24 h may provide better elimination and prevent heparin rebound than bolus injection and other infusion regimens that have higher infusion rates and shorter duration. Conclusion A two-compartment model accurately reflects the pharmacokinetics of UFH in Chinese patients during CPB and can be used to explain postoperative heparin rebound after protamine neutralization. Simulations suggest a 24-h protamine infusion is more effective for heparin rebound prevention than a 6-h protamine infusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The global EINSTEIN DVT and PE studies compared rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) with enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist therapy and demonstrated non-inferiority for efficacy and superiority for major bleeding. Owing to differences in targeted anticoagulant intensities in Japan, Japanese patients were not enrolled into the global studies. Instead, a separate study of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) in Japanese patients was conducted, which compared the Japanese standard of care with a reduced dose of rivaroxaban. Methods We conducted an open-label, randomized trial that compared 3, 6, or 12 months of oral rivaroxaban alone (10 mg twice daily or 15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 15 mg once daily) with activated partial thromboplastin time-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) followed by warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0; range 1.5-2.5) in patients with acute, objectively confirmed symptomatic DVT and/or PE. Patients were assessed for the occurrence of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolic events or asymptomatic deterioration and bleeding. Results 81 patients were assigned to rivaroxaban and 19 patients to UFH/warfarin. Three patients were excluded because of serious non-compliance issues. The composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolic events or asymptomatic deterioration occurred in 1 (1.4%) rivaroxaban patient and in 1 (5.3%) UFH/warfarin patient (absolute risk difference, 3.9% [95% confidence interval, -3.4-23.8]). No major bleeding occurred during study treatment. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 6 (7.8%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (5.3%) patient in the UFH/warfarin group. Conclusions The findings of this study in Japanese patients with acute DVT and/or PE suggest a similar efficacy and safety profile with rivaroxaban and control treatment, consistent with that of the worldwide EINSTEIN DVT and PE program. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01516840 and NCT01516814. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global EINSTEIN DVT and PE studies compared rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) with enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist therapy and demonstrated non-inferiority for efficacy and superiority for major bleeding. Owing to differences in targeted anticoagulant intensities in Japan, Japanese patients were not enrolled into the global studies. Instead, a separate study of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE) in Japanese patients was conducted, which compared the Japanese standard of care with a reduced dose of rivaroxaban., Methods: We conducted an open-label, randomized trial that compared 3, 6, or 12 months of oral rivaroxaban alone (10 mg twice daily or 15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 15 mg once daily) with activated partial thromboplastin time-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) followed by warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0; range 1.5-2.5) in patients with acute, objectively confirmed symptomatic DVT and/or PE. Patients were assessed for the occurrence of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolic events or asymptomatic deterioration and bleeding., Results: Eighty-one patients were assigned to rivaroxaban and 19 patients to UFH/warfarin. Three patients were excluded because of serious non-compliance issues. The composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolic events or asymptomatic deterioration occurred in 1 (1.4%) rivaroxaban patient and in 1 (5.3%) UFH/warfarin patient (absolute risk difference, 3.9% [95% confidence interval, -3.4-23.8]). No major bleeding occurred during study treatment. Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 6 (7.8%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (5.3%) patient in the UFH/warfarin group., Conclusions: The findings of this study in Japanese patients with acute DVT and/or PE suggest a similar efficacy and safety profile with rivaroxaban and control treatment, consistent with that of the worldwide EINSTEIN DVT and PE program., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01516840 and NCT01516814.