Evidence Hub

OR32. Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic Versus Prophylactic Dose of Anticoagulation in Hospitalized Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia and Coagulopathy: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial

L. Adrian, S. A. Hutomo, A. D. S. Negari

European Heart Journal, Supplement, 2021

19 participants

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims The use of therapeutic anticoagulation to improve outcomes in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. Methods and Results This was a single-center, open-label, two-arms, randomized controlled study conducted from 1st April to 15th July 2021. Two-hundred fifty severe COVID-19 patients with coagulopathy were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either prophylactic anticoagulation (subcutaneous unfractionated heparin/UFH 5000IU b.i.d or fondaparinux 2.5mg o.d) or therapeutic anticoagulation (weight-adjusted dose UFH or fondaparinux). Anticoagulation was administered until hospital discharge or at the treating physician’s discretion. All patients received international COVID-19 guideline-driven therapy throughout the study. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between both arms, except for the D-dimer and CRP level at admission (p = 0.04; p = 0.001; respectively). During a 30-day follow-up, therapeutic arm revealed significant higher need for NIV/invasive MV (41.3% vs. 29%, p = 0.02), higher progression to ARDS (34.1% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.001), and increased 30-day all-cause mortality (58.7% vs. 15.3%, p < 0.001) as compared with prophylactic arm. There was no significant difference between both arms in the incidence of acute MI (20% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.07), VTE (4.8% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.09),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 19 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free