ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022
Effect of intermediate/high versus low dose heparin on the thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal prophylactic dose of heparin in patients with coronavirus-associated disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED) is debated. This study aimed to analyze different thromboprophylaxis approaches in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted to ED without initial venous thromboembolism.
methodsRetrospectively, the effect of intermediate/high versus low dose heparin treatment was evaluated from December 2020 to July 2021 in a tertiary Academic Hospital in northeast Italy. The primary outcome comprised arterial or venous thromboembolism or all-cause death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes comprised each single primary outcome component or major hemorrhagic event. Cox regression was used to determine predictors of the primary outcome and propensity score weights to balance the effect of heparin treatment on all outcomes.
resultsData of 144 consecutive patients (age 70 ± 13, 33% females) were included in the study. High-dose prophylactic heparin was used in 69%, intermediate in 15%, and low in 17% of patients. The primary outcome occurred in 48 patients. Independent predictors of the primary outcome were COVID-19 severity (hazards ratio (HR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-3.65, p = 0.035) and D-dimer levels (HR each log ng/dl 1.38, 95% CI 1.04-1.84, p = 0.026). Intermediate/high dose heparin did not affect the risk of the primary outcome compared with the low dose (weighted HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.75-2.56, p = 0.292). Intermediate/high heparin increased the risk of major hemorrhagic events (weighted HR 5.92, 95% CI 1.09-32, p = 0.039).
conclusionsIn unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted to ED, prophylaxis with heparin at the intermediate/high dose did not reduce primary outcome compared with the low dose but increased the risk of major hemorrhagic events.
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.