ArticleThoracic research and practice2023
What is the Optimal Treatment Regimen of Low-MolecularWeight Heparin in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia?
Article in Thoracic research and practice, 2023. 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, 0 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal anticoagulant treatment regimen in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is uncertain. This study aimed to compare the rates of disease progression and mortality in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) according to baseline d-dimer levels and in those who received a fixed-dose regimen irrespective of the d-dimer level. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of all patients admitted to a university hospital for COVID-19 pneumonia during a 1-year period. The protocol for d-dimer-driven therapy (on-protocol) was as follows: prophylactic dose when the baseline level is <1000 ng/mL, intermediate dose when the level is between 1000 and 3000 ng/mL, and therapeutic dose when the level is >3000 ng/mL. We compared the progression and mortality rates between the on-protocol and off-protocol treatment groups. The offprotocol group consisted of patients that received a fixed-dose LMWH regimen, which was not in accordance with the defined protocol.
resultsOf 384 patients (mean age 61.5 ± 15.9 years, 216 male), 294 patients with complete data composed the study group, and 174 patients were treated on-protocol and 120 patients were treated off-protocol. The on-protocol group had lower C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and d-dimer levels and higher SpO2/FiO2 levels at admission. Disease progression developed in 45/174 on-protocol patients (25.9%) vs. 53/120 off-protocol patients (44.2%) during the follow-up (P = .001), and mortality was 29 (16.7%) vs. 32 (26.7%), respectively (P = .041). Logistic regression analysis was performed and included age, presence of comorbidities, LMWH regimen, baseline SpO2/FiO2, CRP, and LDH levels as independent variables. The presence of cardiac comorbidity, age, CRP, and LDH levels, but not the LMWH treatment regimen, were associated with both disease progression and mortality.
conclusionA d-dimer-driven LMWH treatment protocol is not associated with better clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
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.