METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled study of 66 eligible neonates with PICCs inserted for the administration of TPN. Infants were randomized to receive TPN containing either 1 IU ml(-1) of heparin (n = 35) or no heparin (n = 31).
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of blocked catheters between the two groups of infants (heparin: 14.3%; no-heparin: 22.6%, p = 0.4). Although a higher percentage (62.9%) of infants in the heparin group received a complete course of TPN successfully via PICC than those in the no-heparin group (48.4%), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.3). There were no significant differences in the incidence of catheter-related sepsis, hypertriglyceridaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, coagulopathy or intraventricular haemorrhage between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Addition of heparin to TPN fluid was not associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of blocked PICCs. However, the sample size of this study was too small to exclude even rather marked differences between the groups.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. The anticoagulant drugs included are UFH, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any combination of warfarin, UFH, LMWH and placebo in pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbooks for Systemic Reviews of Interventions for assessing the eligibility of studies identified by the search strategy. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in the review.We identified three potential studies; after assessing eligibility, we excluded all three as they did not meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. One study compared LMWH and UFH in pregnant women with previous thromboembolic events and, for most of these women, anticoagulants were used as thromboprophylaxis. There were only three women who had a thromboembolic event during the current pregnancy and it was unclear whether the anticoagulant was used as therapy or prophylaxis. We excluded one study because it included only women undergoing caesarean birth. The third study was not a randomised trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of anticoagulation for deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. Further studies are required.
METHODS: A total of 12 PD bags (3 for each type of solution) containing ceftazidime and heparin were prepared and stored at 4°C for 120 hours, and then at 25°C for 6 hours, and finally at 37°C for 12 hours. An aliquot was withdrawn after predefined time points and analyzed for the concentration of ceftazidime and heparin using high-performance liquid-chromatography (HPLC). Samples were assessed for pH, color changes, particle content, and anticoagulant activity of heparin.
RESULTS: Ceftazidime and heparin retained more than 91% of their initial concentration when stored at 4°C for 120 hours followed by storage at 25°C for 6 hours and then at 37°C for 12 hours. Heparin retained more than 95% of its initial activity throughout the study period. Particle formation was not detected at any time under the storage conditions. The pH and color remained essentially unchanged throughout the study.
CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-heparin admixture retains its stability over long periods of storage at different temperatures, allowing its potential use for PDAP treatment in outpatient and remote settings.