The Standard is Still the Standard or Why an INR of 2–3 is Still the Optimal Intensity for Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism

Author： Kovacs Michael  

Publisher： Springer Publishing Company

ISSN： 0929-5305

Source： Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, Vol.21, Iss.1, 2006-02, pp. : 53-56

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

Related content

Point—Counter Point: Low Intensity vs Standard Intensity Oral Anticoagulation for Long-Term Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism Recurrence

By Ansell Jack  

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2006-02 ,pp. : 49-49

Springer Publishing Company

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Carotid Endarterectomy: Is It Still a Gold Standard?

By  

Cerebrovascular Diseases, Vol. 20, Iss. 2, 2005-12 ,pp. : 119-122

Karger

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

GP IIb/IIIa Inhibitors for STEMI: Still the Gold Standard or an Old Survivor?

By  

Current Vascular Pharmacology, Vol. 10, Iss. 4, 2012-07 ,pp. : 443-447

Bentham Science Publishers

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Comparison of low-intensity warfarin therapy with conventional-intensity warfarin therapy for long-term prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism

By Kearon C.   Ginsberg J.S.   Kovacs M.J.   for the Extended Low-Intensity Anticoagulation for Thrombo-Embolism Investigators  

ACC Current Journal Review, Vol. 12, Iss. 6, 2003-11 ,pp. : 16-16

Elsevier

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Venous Thromboembolism and Cancer: Prevention of VTE

By Bergqvist D.  

Thrombosis Research, Vol. 102, Iss. 6, 2001-06 ,pp. : 209-213

Elsevier

Access to resources Recommend Favorite