ArticleThrombosis journal2025
Evaluation of direct oral anticoagulant continuation versus switching to a parenteral anticoagulant in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used as first-line agents in various clinical settings. However, there is very little evidence regarding their use in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), given the gap in the literature regarding their safety in this population and the concerns of bleeding and alterations in pharmacokinetics. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prescribing pattern and safety of DOAC use in critically ill patients.
methodsThis was a single-centre retrospective chart review study involving critically ill patients with confirmed prehospital use of DOACs who either continued their use of DOACs or switched to a therapeutic parenteral anticoagulant agent (enoxaparin or heparin) during the admission to the medical ICU and/or coronary care unit (CCU). The primary outcome was the incidence of major bleeding (MB) events. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of new thrombosis and medical ICU/CCU mortality and hospital and medical ICU/CCU lengths of stay (LOS).
resultsA total of 675 patients were screened for inclusion. A total of 302 patients were included in the final analysis, with 167 patients in the DOAC group and 135 patients in the parenteral anticoagulant group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of the incidence of MB (11% vs. 9%, p = 0.61) or new thrombosis (1% vs. 3%, p = 0.50). The overall medical ICU/CCU mortality rate was lower in the DOAC group compared to the parenteral anticoagulant group (7% vs. 15%, p = 0.03). Additionally, the DOAC group had shorter medical ICU/CCU stays (6 days [4-11] vs. 11 days [5-24], p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stays (7 days [5-13] vs. 13 days [7-35], p < 0.001), respectively.
conclusionCompared with the use of parenteral anticoagulants, the use of DOACs in critically ill patients was associated with a similar incidence of MB and new thrombotic events. The observed differences in mortality and LOS between the groups may be attributed to variability in physician decision-making regarding anticoagulation strategies, potentially influenced by patient-specific factors and severity of illness. Further prospective studies to determine the optimal anticoagulation strategy in critically ill patients are warranted.
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.