ArticleCardiology journal2020
Low molecular weight heparin in surgical valve procedures: When and how much for an optimal prophylaxis?
Article in Cardiology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice Patterns of Antithrombotic Therapy during the Early Postoperative Course of Cardiac Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprocedural antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgical valve procedures (SVP) is insufficiently investigated. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been considered as an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH). However, safety and efficacy of this prophylaxis strategy is unknown. This study aimed to investigate safety and efficacy of periprocedural LMWH prophylaxis and determine optimal dosage and timing for periprocedural cessation and initiation.
methodsThe present study is a retrospective, single-center observational analysis of 388 patients who underwent SVP (valve replacement or valvuloplasty) between 2015 and 2016. In-hospital endpoints were bleeding, transfusions, reoperation due to bleeding, and thromboembolic events.
resultsGiving the first dose of LMWH on the day of SVP was a risk factor for bleeding (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.10; p < 0.001), transfusions (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; p = 0.008) and reoperation due to bleeding (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.12-1.28; p < 0.001), with > 40 mg/day as a predictor. A higher dosage of LMWH premedication was an independent risk factor for bleeding (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04; p = 0.03) and transfusion (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05; p = 0.01), with > 60 mg/day as a predictor for these events. LMWH dosed within 24 h prior to SVP increased the risk of transfusion (AUC 0.636; 95% CI 0.496-0.762; p = 0.04).
conclusionsBleeding is an important early concern after surgical valve procedures. Safety and efficacy of periprocedural prophylaxis with LMWH depends on dosage and the timing of its administration. The most optimal periprocedural prophylaxis in the SVP population appears to be LMWH in dosage of 40-60 mg/day, which is recommended for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, ceased at least one day before SVP.
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.