Effect of low or high doses of low-molecular-weight heparin on thrombin generation and other haemostasis parameters in critically ill patients with COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chistolini A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7361613 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effect of low or high doses of low-molecular-weight heparin on thrombin generation and other haemostasis parameters in critically ill patients with COVID-19.
Chistolini Antonio A Ruberto Franco F Alessandri Francesco F Santoro Cristina C Barone Francesco F Cristina Puzzolo Maria M Ceccarelli Giancarlo G De Luca Maria L ML Mancone Massimo M Alvaro Domenico D Pulcinelli Fabio M FM Martelli Maurizio M Foà Robin R Pugliese Francesco F
British journal of haematology 20200728 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate potential markers of coagulopathy and the effects of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on thromboelastography (TEG) and anti-factor Xa in critically ill COVID-19 patients.Material and methodsWe conducted a prospective study in 31 consecutive adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. TEG with and without heparinase and anti-factor Xa analysis were performed. Standard thromboprophylaxis was given with dalteparin (75-100 IU/kg subcutaneously).ResultsFive patients (16%) had symptomatic thromboembolic events. All patients had a maximum amplitude (MA) > 65 mm and 13 (42%) had MA > 72 mm at some point during ICU stay. Anti-factor Xa activity were below the target range in 23% of the patients and above target range in 46% of patients. There was no significant correlation between dalteparin dose and anti-factor Xa activity.ConclusionsPatients with COVID-19 have hypercoagulability with high MA on TEG. The effect of LMWH on thromboembolic disease, anti-factor Xa activity and TEG was variable and could not be reliably predicted. This indicates that standard prophylactic doses of LMWH may be insufficient. Monitoring coagulation and the LMWH effect is important in patients with COVID-19 but interpreting the results in relation to risk of thromboembolic disease poses difficulties.
| S-EPMC7470731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCritically ill COVID-19 patients have a clear pattern of inflammation and hypercoagulable state. The main aim of the study was to evaluate the outcome of severe COVID-19 patients basing on prothrombotic risk factors (i.e. D-dimer). We also evaluated the impact of different doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on the incidence of bleedings.MethodsThe data of forty-two patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) were retrospectively analyzed. On ICU admission, patients with D-dimer < 3000 ng/mL (Group 1) received enoxaparin 4000 UI (6000 UI, if body mass index >35) subcutaneously b.i.d. and patients with D-dimer ≥ 3000 ng/mL (Group 2) received enoxaparin 100 UI/kg every 12 h. Aspirin was administered to all patients once a day.ResultsBoth groups presented a high incidence of perivascular thrombosis (40.9% in Group 1 and 30% in Group 2). Patients of Group 2 suffered a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than Group 1 (65% vs 13.6%, p = 0.001). One patient (4.5%) of Group 1 and three patients (15%) of Group 2 suffered from minor bleeding; no patient had major bleeding. Group 2 had a longer ICU and hospital stay than Group 1 (11.5 ± 5.6 vs 9.0 ± 4.8 and 30 ± 4.9 vs 21 ± 2.3, p < 0.05, respectively) as well as increased ICU mortality (25% vs 9.1%).ConclusionsMore severe critically ill COVID-19 patients have a high incidence of VTE and worse outcome, despite the use of heparin at the therapeutic dose. However, the use of heparin did not increase the incidence of bleeding complications.
| S-EPMC7487146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Seven pharmaceutical heparins were investigated by oligosaccharide mapping by digestion with heparin lyase 1, 2, or 3, followed by high performance liquid chromatography analysis. The structure of one of the prepared mapping standards, ?UA-Gal-Gal-Xyl-O-CH(2)CONHCH(2)COOH (where ?UA is 4-deoxy-?-l-threo-hex-4-eno-pyranosyluronic acid, Gal is ?-d-galactpyranose, and Xyl is ?-d-xylopyranose) released from the linkage region using either heparin lyase 2 or heparin lyase 3 digestion, is reported for the first time. A size-dependent susceptibility of site cleaved by heparin lyase 3 was also observed. Heparin lyase 3 acts on the undersulfated domains of the heparin chain and does not cleave the linkages within heparin's antithrombin III binding site. Thus, a novel low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is afforded on heparin lyase 3 digestion of heparin due to this unique substrate specificity, which has anticoagulant activity comparable to that of currently available LMWH.
| S-EPMC3024469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome.MethodsWe evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters.ResultsData of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose.ConclusionWe found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC9957653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome.MetohdsWe evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters.ResultsData of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (P=.819 and P=.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose.ConclusionWe found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.
| S-EPMC8938174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is concern about excessive bleeding when low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in renal dysfunction. Our objective was to evaluate whether LMWH VTE prophylaxis was safe and effective in critically ill patients with renal dysfunction by conducting a subgroup analysis of PROTECT, a randomized blinded trial.MethodsWe studied intensive care unit (ICU) patients with pre-ICU dialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease (ESRD; pre-specified subgroup; n = 118), or severe renal dysfunction at ICU admission (defined as ESRD or non-dialysis dependent with creatinine clearance [CrCl] <30 ml/min; post hoc subgroup; n = 590). We compared dalteparin, 5000 IU daily, with unfractionated heparin (UFH), 5000 IU twice daily, and considered outcomes of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (DVT); pulmonary embolism (PE); any VTE; and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard ratios [HR] were calculated using Cox regression.ResultsIn patients with ESRD, there was no significant difference in DVT (8.3% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.76), any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.39) or major bleeding (5.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.32) between UFH and dalteparin. In patients with severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE (10.0% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.07) or major bleeding (8.9% vs. 11.0%; p = 0.66) but an increase in DVT with dalteparin (7.6% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.04). Interaction p-values for comparisons of HRs (ESRD versus not) were non-significant.ConclusionsIn critically ill patients with ESRD, or severe renal dysfunction, there was no significant difference in any VTE or major bleeding between UFH and dalteparin. Patients with severe renal dysfunction who received dalteparin had more proximal DVTs than those on UFH; this finding did not hold in patients with ESRD alone.
| S-EPMC5983525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) are complex anticoagulant drugs that mainly inhibit the blood coagulation cascade through indirect interaction with antithrombin. While inhibition of the factor Xa is well described, little is known about the polysaccharide structure inhibiting thrombin. In fact, a minimal chain length of 18 saccharides units, including an antithrombin (AT) binding pentasaccharide, is mandatory to form the active ternary complex for LMWH obtained by alkaline β-elimination (e.g., enoxaparin). However, the relationship between structure of octadecasaccharides and their thrombin inhibition has not been yet assessed on natural compounds due to technical hurdles to isolate sufficiently pure material. We report the preparation of five octadecasaccharides by using orthogonal separation methods including size exclusion, AT affinity, ion pairing and strong anion exchange chromatography. Each of these octadecasaccharides possesses two AT binding pentasaccharide sequences located at various positions. After structural elucidation using enzymatic sequencing and NMR, in vitro aFXa and aFIIa were determined. The biological activities reveal the critical role of each pentasaccharide sequence position within the octadecasaccharides and structural requirements to inhibit thrombin. Significant differences in potency, such as the twenty-fold magnitude difference observed between two regioisomers, further highlights the importance of depolymerisation process conditions on LMWH biological activity.
| S-EPMC6155232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A pro-thrombotic milieu and a higher risk of thrombotic events were observed in patients with CoronaVirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Accordingly, recent data suggested a beneficial role of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but the optimal dosage of this treatment is unknown. We evaluated the association between prophylactic vs. intermediate-to-fully anticoagulant doses of enoxaparin and in-hospital adverse events in patients with COVID-19. We retrospectively included 436 consecutive patients admitted in three Italian hospitals. Outcome according to the use of prophylactic (4000 IU) vs. higher (> 4000 IU) daily dosage of enoxaparin was evaluated. The primary end-point was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome measures were in-hospital cardiovascular death, venous thromboembolism, new-onset acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mechanical ventilation. A total of 287 patients (65.8%) were treated with the prophylactic enoxaparin regimen and 149 (34.2%) with a higher dosing regimen. The use of prophylactic enoxaparin dose was associated with a similar incidence of all-cause mortality (25.4% vs. 26.9% with the higher dose; OR at multivariable analysis, including the propensity score: 0.847, 95% CI 0.400-0.1.792; p = 0.664). In the prophylactic dose group, a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular death (OR 0.165), venous thromboembolism (OR 0.067), new-onset ARDS (OR 0.454) and mechanical intubation (OR 0.150) was observed. In patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the use of a prophylactic dosage of enoxaparin appears to be associated with similar in-hospital overall mortality compared to higher doses. These findings require confirmation in a randomized, controlled study.
| S-EPMC7919624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).
| S-EPMC8362592 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10231279 | biostudies-literature