↓ Skip to main content

Choosing between Enoxaparin and Fondaparinux for the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Choosing between Enoxaparin and Fondaparinux for the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12872-017-0552-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pravesh Kumar Bundhun, Musaben Shaik, Jun Yuan

Abstract

Enoxaparin and Fondaparinux are potential anticoagulants which are used peri-operatively in the management of patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). We aimed to compare the adverse clinical outcomes which are associated with the use of these anticoagulants in patients who were treated for ACS. Online databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library) were searched for studies which compared differences in clinical outcomes observed with the use of enoxaparin and fondaparinux in patients who were treated peri-operatively for ACS. Statistical analysis was carried out by Revman 5.3 software with odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the analytical parameters. Seven studies with a total number of 9618 patients (mainly composed of non-ST elevated myocardial infarction/NSTEMI) were included. This analysis showed mortality to be similarly observed between enoxaparin and fondaparinux with OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.67-1.63; P = 0.84. Myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke were also not significantly different throughout different follow up periods. However, minor, major and total bleeding were significantly lower with fondaparinux (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27-0.58; P = 0.00001), (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.32-0.66; P = 0.0001) and (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.37-0.60; P = 0.00001) respectively during the 10-day follow up period. Even during a follow up period of 30 days or a midterm follow up, major and minor bleeding still significantly favored fondaparinux in comparison to enoxaparin. In patients who were treated for ACS, fondaparinux might be a better choice when compared to enoxaparin in terms of short to midterm bleeding events. This result was mainly applicable to patients with NSTEMI. However, due to a limited number of patients analyzed, further larger randomized trials should be able to confirm this hypothesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 38 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Unspecified 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 42 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,147,198
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#171
of 1,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,129
of 311,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,725 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.