| Autor: |
Khalid Al Sulaiman, Ohoud Aljuhani, Ghazwa B. Korayem, Awatif Hafiz, Mai Alalawi, Hisham A. Badreldin, Ali F. Altebainawi, Ramesh Vishwakarma, Abdulrahman Alissa, Albandari Alghamdi, Abeer A. Alenazi, Huda Al Enazi, Shahad Alanazi, Abdullah Alhammad, Jahad Alghamdi, Mashael AlFaifi, Faisal A. Al Sehli, Maram A. Aldossari, Alaa A. Alhubaishi, Anfal Y. Al-Ali, Hasan M. Al-Dorzi |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2022 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Thrombosis Journal, Vol 20, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2022) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1477-9560 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s12959-022-00432-9 |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate. Results A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). Conclusion Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
