ArticleCureus2022
Use of Systemic Anticoagulation in COVID-19: Delving Beyond Theoretical Hypothesis.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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.
- The optimal anticoagulation strategy for COVID-19, prophylactic or therapeutic?: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and meta-regression of more than 27,000 participants.Emergency and critical care medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Studies suggest that COVID-19 infection may induce increased hypercoagulability, leading to thrombotic complications. The high rates of thrombotic complications among patients receiving standard-dose deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis have prompted some clinicians to support the empiric increase of anticoagulation (AC) doses used for prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19. At present, the optimal anticoagulant agents, dosages, and duration have not been designated. We conducted a retrospective study to assess for outcomes in patients who received treatment for COVID-19 based on various dosings of AC. Methods This was a single-institution, retrospective cross-sectional study including patients with a positive COVID-19 test who were admitted within the St. Joseph's Health Network from September to November of 2020. The inclusion criteria were men and women aged 18 years or older who had confirmed COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Medical charts of patients who met the inclusion criteria were audited to obtain information. The patients were separated into three cohorts: those who received DVT prophylactic dose of AC, those who received an intermediate dose of AC, and those who received therapeutic AC. Results A total of 440 patients were included in the study, of whom 236 were Hispanic (50.3%), 131 were Caucasian (27.1%), 47 were African American (10.7%), and 26 were Asian (5.9%). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (273/440 [62.2%]), diabetes 189/440 [43.1%]), and coronary artery disease (60/440 [13.7%]). In the DVT prophylactic dose of AC cohort, there were 215 patients, and the average length of stay was 10.3 days. Eleven patients experienced bleeding events, five patients experienced thrombotic events, 16 patients required mechanical ventilation, and 20 patients died. In the intermediate dose of AC cohort, there were 63 patients, and the average length of stay was 10.3 days. Three patients experienced bleeding events, two patients experienced thrombotic events, seven patients required mechanical invasive ventilation, and 11 patients died. In the therapeutic dose of AC cohort, there were 162 patients, and the average length of stay was 14 days. In this cohort, 19 patients experienced bleeding events, 12 patients experienced thrombotic events, 26 patients required invasive mechanical ventilation, and 29 patients died. Patients who received intermediate dosing of AC also had the lowest risk of thrombotic events (0.05). Patients who received intermediate dosing of AC had the lowest rates of requiring both high-flow nasal cannula (p = 0.0001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.031). Patients who received intermediate dosing of AC had a lower rate of bleeding compared to those who received the DVT prophylaxis dose and systemic AC dose (p = 0.037). The DVT prophylactic and intermediate dosing of AC groups had a shorter length of stay in comparison to the systemic AC group (p = 0.0002). Conclusion In comparison to the venous thromboembolism prophylaxis dose and systemic AC dose groups, intermediate dosing of AC had the lowest rates of hemorrhage, mortality, length of stay, and requirement of high-flow nasal cannula or mechanical invasive ventilation. In the systemic dose AC group, there were worse clinical outcomes in terms of length of stay, incidence of bleeding events, requirement of mechanical ventilator use, and rate of mortality.
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.