Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 10;2016(11):CD002783. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002783.pub4

Elliot 1979.

Methods A prospective, controlled, randomised, comparative study to compare conventional full dose heparin and streptokinase (Kabikinase)
Participants Country: South Africa
Total randomised: 51 (strep 26, hep 25)
Sex: Male (17) and female (34)
Mean age hep group: 51 years; strep group: 48 years
Inclusion criteria: proximal vein thrombosis diagnosed by bilateral ascending phlebograph and less than 8 days clinical history of DVT
Exclusion criteria: any surgery within 7 days or neurosurgical within 2 months, pregnancy, menstruation, haemorrhagic diatheses, diastolic blood pressure of 110 mmHg, suspected or know bleeding lesions, cerebrovascular accident within 6 months, recent streptococcal infection, previous streptokinase therapy within 6 months, liver or renal disease
2 patients in strep group had axillary vein thrombosis
Interventions Treatment: 100 mg of hydrocortisone 15 mins prior to first streptokinase dose and repeated 6 hourly for duration of strep treatment. Strepokinase (Kabikinase) loading dose of 600,000 U given by infusion over a period of 30 mins. Then 100,000 U hourly for 3 days by infusion pump. Then heparin for 4 days dose adjusted to maintain Lee‐White clotting time to at least 2.5 ‐ 3 normal
Control: At diagnosis 10,000 U of heparin given by iv injection. The 10,000 U iv 6 hourly using constant infusion pump. Dose adjusted to maintain Lee‐White clotting time to at least 2.5 ‐ 3 normal
Treatment continued for 7 days
30 mg warfarin given as a loading dose to both groups 36 hours before heparin therapy terminated, warfarin continued for 8 weeks, dose adjusted to maintain pro‐thrombin index 40 ‐ 60 per cent
All participants bed rest for duration, foot of bed raised by 60 cm, elastic support provided
Outcomes Mortality, complete lysis, bleeding, PE, valve function, PTS symptoms 6‐33 months (mean 19 months)
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk no details given
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk no details given
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk no details given but judged low risk as outcome assessment well described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk "..all radiographs were assessed on a blind basis"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk no missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk all outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk none