This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We read with interest the report by O'Rourke et al,¹ and there are some controversial data that are important to analyze. Reading this report, one could think that only one product of low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin (enoxaparin sodium) is available in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes or that enoxaparin is better than the other LMW heparin products. However, there are 3 available LMW heparin products for this treatment (dalteparin, nadroparin, and enoxaparin), and there are no differences in their applications according to the current guidelines of cardiology.²

An important point that the authors have not analyzed is the difference in design of the enoxaparin trials compared with other LMW heparin studies such as the Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease Study (FRIC)³ or the FRAXiparine in Ischaemic Syndrome (FRAXIS) study.⁴ In the acute phase of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infraction (TIMI) 11B trial,⁵ rather than a direct comparison of unfractionated heparin . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

New Approaches to Diagnosis and Management of Unstable Angina and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Robert A. O'Rourke, Judith S. Hochman, Marc C. Cohen, Charles L. Lucore, Jeffrey J. Popma, and Christopher P. Cannon
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(5):674-682.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT