Dataset Information

Prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19: cohort studies in Denmark and Sweden.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate safety and effectiveness of prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in individuals hospitalised for COVID-19.

Methods

Using healthcare records from the Capital Region of Denmark (March 2020-February 2021) and Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden (February 2020-September 2021), we conducted an observational cohort study comparing clinical outcomes 30 days after admission among individuals hospitalised for COVID-19 starting prophylactic LMWH during the first 48 hours of hospitalisation with outcomes among those not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. We used inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounders and bias due to missing information. Risk ratios, risk differences and robust 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using binomial regression. Country-specific risk ratios were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

We included 1692 and 1868 individuals in the Danish and Swedish cohorts. Of these, 771 (46%) and 1167 (62%) received prophylactic LMWH up to 48 hours after admission. The combined mortality in Denmark and Sweden was 12% (N = 432) and the pooled risk ratio was 0.91 (CI 0.60-1.38) comparing individuals who received LMWH to those who did not. The relative risk of ICU admission was 1.12 (0.76-1.66), while we observed no increased risk of bleeding 0.63 (0.13-2.94). The relative risk of venous thromboembolism was 0.80 (0.43-1.47).

Conclusion

We found no benefit on mortality with prophylactic LMWH and no increased risk of bleeding among COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic LMWH.

SUBMITTER: Lund LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8926439 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRenal insufficiency increases the half-life of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs). Whether continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) removes LMWHs is unsettled. We studied hemostasis during nadroparin anticoagulation for CVVH, and explored the implication of the endogenous thrombin potential (ETP).MethodsThis cross-over study, performed in a 20-bed teaching hospital ICU, randomized non-surgical patients with acute kidney injury requiring nadroparin for CVVH to compare hemostasis between two doses of CVVH: filtrate flow was initiated at 4 L/h and converted to 2 L/h after 60 min in group 1, and vice versa in group 2. Patients received nadroparin 2850 IU i.v., followed by 380 IU/h continuously in the extracorporeal circuit. After baseline sampling, ultrafiltrate, arterial (art) and postfilter (PF) blood was taken for hemostatic markers after 1 h, and 15 min, 6 h, 12 h and 24 h after converting filtrate flow. We compared randomized groups, and 'early circuit clotting' to 'normal circuit life' groups.ResultsFourteen patients were randomized, seven to each group. Despite randomization, group 1 had higher SOFA scores (median 14 (IQR 11-15) versus 9 (IQR 5-9), p = 0.004). Anti-Xa art activity peaked upon nadroparin bolus and declined thereafter (p = 0.05). Anti-Xa PF did not change in time. Anti-Xa activity was not detected in ultrafiltrate. Medians of all anti-Xa samples were lower in group 1 (anti-Xa art 0.19 (0.12-0.37) vs. 0.31 (0.23-0.52), p = 0.02; anti-Xa PF 0.34 (0.25-0.44) vs. 0.51 (0.41-0.76), p = 0.005). After a steep decline, arterial ETPAUC tended to increase (p = 0.06), opposite to anti-Xa, while postfilter ETPAUC increased (p = 0.001). Median circuit life was 24.5 h (IQR 12-37 h). Patients with 'short circuit life' had longer baseline prothrombin time (PTT), activated thromboplastin time (aPTT), lower ETP, higher thrombin-antithrombin complexes (TAT) and higher SOFA scores; during CVVH, anti-Xa, and platelets were lower; PTT, aPTT, TAT and D-dimers were longer/higher and ETP was slower and depressed.ConclusionsWe found no accumulation and no removal of LMWH activity during CVVH. However, we found that early circuit clotting was associated with more severe organ failure, prior systemic thrombin generation with consumptive coagulopathy, heparin resistance and elevated extracorporeal thrombin generation. ETP integrates these complex effects on the capacity to form thrombin.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID NCT00965328.

Project description:Background:Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) in multiple indications. Although LMWH efficacy in hemodialysis was demonstrated through multiple studies, their safety remains controversial. The potential bioaccumulation in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis raised the question of bleeding risk among this population. Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate bleeding risk among patients with chronic hemodialysis receiving LMWH or UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation. Design:We conducted a retrospective cohort study on data extracted from the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) and Med-Echo databases from January 2007 to March 2013. Setting:Twenty-one hemodialysis centers in the province of Québec, Canada. Patients:Chronic hemodialysis patients. Measurements:Bleeding risk evaluated by proportional Cox model for time-dependent exposure using demographics, comorbidities, and drug use as covariates. Methods:Minor, major, and total bleeding events identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes in the RAMQ and Med-Echo databases. Exposure status to LMWH or UFH was collected through surveys at the facility level. Results:We identified 5322 prevalent and incident patients with chronic hemodialysis. The incidence rate for minor, major, and total bleeding was 9.45 events/1000 patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.61-11.03), 24.18 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 21.52-27.08), and 32.88 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 29.75-36.26), respectively. We found similar risks of minor adjusted hazard ratio (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.68-1.61), major (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63-1.10), and total bleeding (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.72-1.14) when comparing LMWH with UFH. Limitations:Potential misclassification of patients' exposure status and possible underestimation of minor bleeding risk. Conclusion:LMWH was not associated with a higher minor, major, or total bleeding risk. LMWH did not increase the risk of bleeding compared with UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation in hemodialysis. The convenience of use and predictable effect made LMWH a suitable alternative to UFH in hemodialysis.