ArticleThrombosis journal2023
Anticoagulation strategy and safety in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a French retrospective multicentre study.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2023. 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.
- Incidence and risk factors of deep vein thrombosis in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Major Bleeding Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Observational Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with critical illness due to COVID-19 exhibit increased coagulability associated with a high risk of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Data on prophylactic anticoagulation for these patients are limited and conflicting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU admission was associated with better outcomes compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation.
methodsWe retrospectively included adults admitted with severe COVID-19 to any of 15 ICUs, in 2020 or 2021. We compared the groups given intermediate-dose vs. standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was all-cause day-90 mortality. Secondary outcomes were VTE (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis), ICU stay length, and adverse effects of anticoagulation.
resultsOf 1174 included patients (mean age, 63 years), 399 received standard-dose and 775 intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Of the 211 patients who died within 90 days, 86 (21%) received intermediate and 125 (16%) standard doses. After adjustment on early corticosteroid therapy and critical illness severity, there were no significant between-group differences in day-90 mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95%CI, 0.52-1.04; p = 0.09) or ICU stay length (HR, 0.93; 95%CI, 0.79-1.10; p = 0.38). Intermediate-dose anticoagulation was significantly associated with fewer VTE events (HR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.38-0.80; p < 0.001). Bleeding events occurred in similar proportions of patients in the two groups (odds ratio, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.50-1.47; p = 0.57).
conclusionsMortality on day 90 did not differ between the groups given standard-dose and intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, despite a higher incidence of VTE in the standard-dose group.
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.