ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2017
[Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II (HIT II) : A medical-economic view].
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative anticoagulation in suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.Blood advances · 2022Article
- A Novel C1-Esterase Inhibitor Oxygenator Coating Prevents FXII Activation in Human Blood.Biomolecules · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.