Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28005139›Full record

ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2017

[Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II (HIT II) : A medical-economic view].

R Riedel, A Schmieder, A Koster, S Kim, G Baumgarten, J C Schewe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 77% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

R RiedelInstitut für Medizinökonomie und Medizinische Versorgungsforschung, Rheinische Fachhochschule Köln gGmbH, Schaevenstr. 1 b, 50676, Köln, Deutschland. riedel@med-gutachten.koeln.
A SchmiederStudiengang MSc Medizinökonomie, Rheinische Fachhochschule Köln gGmbH, Köln, Deutschland.
A KosterInstitut für Anästhesiologie, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum NRW (HDZ), Bad Oeynhausen, Deutschland.
S KimKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
G BaumgartenKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
J C ScheweDESA, Operative Intensivmedizin, Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
University Hospital Bonn · DEHeart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia · DERFH - University of Applied Sciences Cologne · DETH Köln - University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of inpatient and increasingly ambulatory thrombosis prophylaxis, heparins have been recognised as standard therapy for decades. In addition to the therapeutic benefit, therapy with heparins also entails the risk of undesirable side effects, such as bleeding and thrombocytopenia. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT II) is deemed a serious side effect.

aimIn the following work, HIT II is subjected to a medico-economic consideration (treatment, pharmaceuticals, subsequent costs due to possible complications) and, with regard to a possible HIT II prophylaxis, aspects of increasingly respected patient safety are also considered.

methodsIn the context of a literature search the active ingredients argatroban and danaparoid, which are approved for HIT II treatment, were evaluated.

resultsHIT II - especially in combination with thromboembolic complications - represents a medical-economic burden for the hospital. Although this is only an orientation guide, it shows that HIT II syndrome is not adequately cost-covered by the G‑DRG system. An early thrombosis prophylaxis with argatroban/danaparoid for HIT II risk patients should therefore be taken into account for medical-related as well as patient safety-relevant aspects. According to experience, the pharmaceutical supply for these medically needed products (anticoagulants) should be ensured for reasons of patient safety.

conclusionThe risk of an immunological response to heparin therapy is known. Within the context of increased patient safety, thrombosis prophylaxis should be issued with a risk-adjusted prophylaxis.

Indexed as

ArginineChondroitin SulfatesCosts and Cost AnalysisDermatan SulfateGermanyHemorrhageHeparan SulfateHeparinHospitalizationHumansPipecolic AcidsRisk FactorsSulfonamidesThrombocytopeniaThrombosisTreatment OutcomeargatrobanArginineChondroitin SulfatesdanaparoidDermatan SulfateHeparan SulfateHeparinPipecolic AcidsSulfonamidesAnticoagulantsHeparinInpatientsPatient safetyThrombocytopenia

Identifiers

PMID28005139
OpenAlexW2562023704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.