A case against heparin therapy of intravascular coagulation.
Administration of a potentially dangerous drug like heparin should not be based on theroretical considerations and innumerable case reports but 1) on a firm diagnosis and 2) on a critical evaluation of the clinical benefit. The validity of criteria for the diagnosis of intravascular coagulation (IC) is discussed. It is emphasized in particular that loss of fibrinogen into extravascular spaces can only be excluded by assays of the level and disappearance rate of serum proteins not subject to the proteolytic action of thrombin or plasmin. Even when the diagnosis can be reasonably established, heparin therapy in a particular condition should only be advocated if its clinical benefit has been demonstrated in controlled clinical trails. Our conviction that heparin has as yet a small if any place in the management of patients with so-called intravascular coagulations is based mainly on two sets of arguments, one stemming from a critique of the diagnosis of IC, the other from a general attitude in the evaluation of therapeutic procedures.
D000347:Afibrinogenemia / Q000175:diagnosis; D004211:Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000188:drug therapy*; D005337:Fibrin / Q000378:metabolism; D005342:Fibrinolysis; D006493:Heparin / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D006801:Humans; D012106:Research; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D013921:Thrombocytopenia / Q000175:diagnosis
D005337:Fibrin; D006493:Heparin