Observational studyAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2025
Is an extended dose of subcutaneous nadroparin anticoagulation equally safe and feasible compared to unfractionated heparin anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill COVID-19 patients?
Observational study in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 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
introductionUnfractionated heparin (UFH) is the traditional anticoagulant of choice in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nadroparin, a low molecular weight heparin, potentially offers advantages such as predictable pharmacokinetics and reduced bleeding risks compared to UFH, with complex pharmacokinetics, influencing activated partial thromboplastin and causing substantial haemorrhagic risks. Bleeding, the most common adverse event during ECMO, is associated by many with increased activated partial thromboplastin time. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective, bicentric analysis involved 38 consecutive ECMO-supported COVID-19 patients from two Polish hospitals. The study compared 27 patients receiving UFH and 11 patients treated with 5700 IU of nadroparin administered subcutaneously twice daily. Thrombotic and haemorrhagic complications were assessed to determine the safety and feasibility of each anticoagulant.
resultsResistance to flow throughout the therapy in the ECMO membrane oxygenator was significantly lower in the group anticoagulated with UFH (1.74 mmHg × minute × L
conclusionsUFH anticoagulation may provide better flow optimization in the oxygenator, but the risk of life-threatening bleeding may increase. The present findings need to be fully elucidated in prospective studies on a larger critically ill population supported with respiratory ECMO.
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.