Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Chest ; 161(2): 418-428, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363121


BACKGROUND: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Open Science Framework; URL:

Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Critical Illness , Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adult , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Cureus ; 12(8): e9943, 2020 Aug 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-740575


Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented in recent history. The rapid global spread has demonstrated how the emergence of a novel pathogen necessitates new information to advise both healthcare systems and policy-makers. The directives for the management of COVID-19 have been limited to infection control measures and treatment of patients, which has left physicians and researchers alone to navigate the massive amount of research being published while searching for evidence-based strategies to care for patients. To tackle this barrier, we launched, an open-access, continually updated, online platform that screens available COVID-19 research to determine higher quality publications. This paper uses data from this review process to explore the activity and trends of COVID-19 research worldwide over time, while specifically looking at the types of studies being published. Materials and Methods The literature search was conducted on PubMed. Search terms included "COVID-19", "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", "coronavirus 19", "SARS-COV-2", and "2019-nCoV". All articles captured by this strategy were reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers and categorized by type of research, relevant medical specialties, and type of publication. Criteria were developed to allow for inclusion or exclusion to the website. Due to the volume of research, only a level 1 (title and abstract) screen was performed. Results The time period for the analysis was January 17, 2020, to May 10, 2020. The total number of papers captured by the search criteria was 10,685, of which 2,742 were included on the website and 7,943 were excluded. The greatest increase in the types of studies over the 16 weeks was narrative review/expert opinion papers followed by case series/reports. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials remained the least published types of studies. Conclusions The surge of research that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic is unparalleled in recent years. From our analysis, it is clear that case reports and narrative reviews were the most widely published, particularly in the earlier days of this pandemic. Continued research that falls higher on the evidence pyramid and is more applicable to clinical settings is warranted.