Trial reportPloS one2018
Low-molecular-weight heparin venous thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction: A subgroup analysis of the PROTECT trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chinese expert consensus on prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism in adult burn patients (2024).Military Medical Research · 2025Guideline
- Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in traumatic brain injury: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Preferences Among Expert Physicians in Areas of Uncertainty in Venous Thromboembolism Management: Results from a Multiple-Choice Questionnaire.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Hemostatic abnormalities after trauma resuscitation: challenges and strategies in caring for the critically injured patient.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients: what's new?Blood advances · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Enoxaparin for Inpatient Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients on Hemodialysis.Hospital pharmacy · 2021Article
- What Do We Know about Thromboprophylaxis and Its Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients?Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Review
- Anticoagulation in CKD and ESRD.Journal of nephrology · 2019Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 12 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is concern about excessive bleeding when low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in renal dysfunction. Our objective was to evaluate whether LMWH VTE prophylaxis was safe and effective in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction by conducting a subgroup analysis of PROTECT, a randomized blinded trial.
methodsWe studied intensive care unit (ICU) patients with pre-ICU dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD; pre-specified subgroup; n = 118), or severe renal dysfunction at ICU admission (defined as ESRD or non-dialysis dependent with creatinine clearance [CrCl] <30 ml/min; post hoc subgroup; n = 590). We compared dalteparin, 5000 IU daily, with unfractionated heparin (UFH), 5000 IU twice daily, and considered outcomes of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT); pulmonary embolism (PE); any VTE; and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard ratios [HR] were calculated using Cox regression.
resultsIn patients with ESRD, there was no significant difference in DVT (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.76), any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.39) or major bleeding (5.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.32) between UFH and dalteparin. In patients with severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.07) or major bleeding (8.9% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.66) but an increase in DVT with dalteparin (7.6% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.04). Interaction p-values for comparisons of HRs (ESRD versus not) were non-significant.
conclusionsIn critically ill patients with ESRD, or severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE or major bleeding between UFH and dalteparin. Patients with severe renal dysfunction who received dalteparin had more proximal DVTs than those on UFH; this finding did not hold in patients with ESRD alone.
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.