Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 174
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 5-7, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1623430
2.
BMJ Case Rep ; 15(1)2022 Jan 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612961

ABSTRACT

Postoperative fevers are common in hospitalised patients and warrant workup beyond the early post-op period. A 50-year-old man was admitted after sustaining a tibial plateau fracture. Fevers began 3 days after external fixation and persisted through a second surgery despite initial negative workup. Careful review of medications revealed enoxaparin as the instigating agent of a febrile drug reaction, and the fevers resolved after discontinuing the drug. On further questioning, it was discovered the patient had an allergy to pork, from which the main components of enoxaparin are typically derived. To our knowledge, this is the first reported enoxaparin-induced fever in the setting of a pork allergy. Enoxaparin-induced fevers should be considered in patients with unexplained post-op fever. Our case demonstrates the importance of analysing newly administered medications. Simple detailed history may significantly reduce patient morbidity and help to broaden differentials during investigation.


Subject(s)
Fever of Unknown Origin , Hypersensitivity , Pork Meat , Red Meat , Animals , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/chemically induced , Swine
3.
Am J Ther ; 29(1): e43-e49, 2021 Nov 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612724

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic doses of anticoagulation have been administered to patients with coronavirus-19 disease (Covid-19) without thromboembolism, although there is a lack of robust evidence supporting this practice. STUDY QUESTION: To compare outcomes between patients admitted to the hospital for Covid-19 who received full-dose anticoagulation purely for the indication of Covid-19 and patients who received prophylactic doses of anticoagulation. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study, including 7 community hospitals in Michigan. Patients were >18 years of age, confirmed positive for Covid-19 by polymerase chain reaction, and admitted to the hospital between March 10 and May 3, 2020. Exposed group: Patients receiving therapeutic dose anticoagulation for Covid-19 for any duration excluding clinically evident venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and myocardial infarction; control group: Patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for the nonrandomized nature of the study. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint: 30-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints: intubation, length of hospital stay, and readmissions in survivors. RESULTS: A total of 115 exposed and 115 control patients were analyzed. Rates of 30-day in-hospital mortality were similar (exposed: 33.0% vs. control: 28.7%). Controlling for institution, there was no significant association between treatment and 30-day in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-1.06). Survivors had statistically similar length of hospital stay and readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in mortality in patients with Covid-19 without clinically evident venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and myocardial infarction who received therapeutic versus prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Humans , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
In Vivo ; 36(1): 381-383, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592873

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study analyzed the characteristics of patients with COVID-19 with major events during the first days of hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients admitted to two hospitals in Athens, Greece. The characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who suffered the primary endpoint (venous thromboembolic events, intubation, and death) during the first days of hospitalization were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 95 patients included in the analysis, 21 presented with major adverse events during a median follow-up of 13 days. More than 50% of these patients presented with a major event during the first 3 days. Anticoagulation treatment was inversely associated with the cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint [hazard ratio=0.16 (95% confidence interval=0.06-0.47)]. Patients with major events were older, with lower baseline SatO2, and higher number of Wells' criteria and Charlson comorbidity index. Among these patients, those with hypertension were at higher risk for early occurrence of events (≤ first three days of hospitalization). CONCLUSION: Major adverse events may occur early in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with a high-risk profile. Anticoagulation treatment appears to reduce this risk and thus prompt thromboprophylaxis should be employed in these patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology
6.
Rev Cardiovasc Med ; 22(4): 1685-1691, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592003

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with various hemostatic abnormalities requiring constant search for better delicate antithrombotic management in these high-risk patients. The choice and the optimal dose of anticoagulant is important, but unclear, especially for mild COVID-19. Enoxaparin has been tested in several COVID trials with mixed results regarding hard clinical outcomes including mortality. We analyzed clinical, laboratory data and changes in platelets, erythrocytes and leukocytes by scanning electron microscopy on admission and at hospital discharge in patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated with enoxaparin (n = 31) and matched healthy controls (n = 32) in a retrospective observational study. The data were triaged by enoxaparin dose comparing 40 mg/daily prophylactic enoxaparin dose (PED) with 80 mg/daily therapeutic (TED) regimens. All patients experienced mild disease, none required pulmonary support, and all survived. The impact of enoxaparin dose was prominent for platelets and erythrocytes, but less evident for leukocytes. PED was associated with significant platelet activation, diminished numbers of silent nonactive discoid cells, and increased number and size of platelet microaggregates with leukocyte involvement. In contrast, TED did not cause extra platelet activation, while circulating platelet microaggregates were smaller and lacking leukocytes in their construction. PED caused significant increase of erythrocyte-platelet aggregates formation, and numerically higher proportion of circulating echinocytes. TED was associated with significant decrease of rouleaux sludge formation compared to only some trend after PED. Changes in leukocytes were less dependent on enoxaparin dose. However, PED has been associated with enhanced aggregate formation in 7 out of 10 patients, while trap net formation has been decreased in 17 out of 21 TED patients. We conclude that over hospital stay TED was superior to PED in patients with mild COVID-19. The inability of PED to adequately protect major circulating blood cells is probably due to enhanced clearance or/and diminished bioavailability of enoxaparin during COVID. These retrospective observational small sample size data may be relevant to better understanding of the mixed results in controlled outcome-driven trials exploring optimal COVID-19 anticoagulant strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Platelets , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Humans , Phenotype , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Ann Med ; 53(1): 295-301, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575822

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of developing a hypercoagulable state due to haemostatic changes directly related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or to the consequence of the cytokine storm. Anticoagulation is now recommended to reduce the thrombotic risk. Ilio-psoas haematoma (IPH) is a potentially lethal condition that can arise during the hospitalization, especially in intensive care units (ICUs) and frequently reported as a complication of anticoagulation treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report a case series of seven subjects with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia complicated by Ilio-psoas haematomas (IPHs) at our COVID-Hospital in Rome, Italy. RESULTS: Over the observation period, 925 subjects with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted to our COVID-hospital. Among them, we found seven spontaneous IPHs with an incidence of 7.6 cases per 1000 hospitalization. All the reported cases had a severe manifestation of COVID-19 pneumonia, with at least one comorbidity and 5/7 were on treatment with low weight molecular heparin for micro or macro pulmonary thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Given the indications to prescribe anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 and the lack of solid evidences on the optimal dose and duration, it is important to be aware of the iliopsoas haematoma as a potentially serious complication in COVID-19 inpatients. KEY MESSAGE Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of hypercoagulability state and anticoagulation therapy is recommended. Ilio-psoas haematoma (IPH) is found to be a complication of anticoagulation regimen especially in severe COVID-19 cases. An incidence of 7.6 cases per 1000 admission of IPHs was reported. Hypoesthesia of the lower limbs, pain triggered by femoral rotation, hypovolaemia and anaemia are the most common symptoms and signs of IPHs that should alert physician.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Hematoma/epidemiology , Psoas Muscles/diagnostic imaging , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/virology , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hematoma/chemically induced , Hematoma/diagnosis , Hematoma/drug therapy , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Italy/epidemiology , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Muscular Diseases , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Severity of Illness Index , Thrombophilia/etiology , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
8.
Intern Med ; 60(21): 3503-3506, 2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572222

ABSTRACT

In hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, anticoagulation therapy is administered to prevent thrombosis. However, anticoagulation sometimes causes bleeding complications. We herein report two Japanese cases of severe COVID-19 in which spontaneous muscle hematomas (SMH) developed under therapeutic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin. Although the activated partial prothrombin time was within the optimal range, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) revealed SMH in the bilateral iliopsoas muscles in both cases, which required emergent transcatheter embolization. Close monitoring of the coagulation system and the early diagnosis of bleeding complications through CECT are needed in severe COVID-19 patients treated with anticoagulants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heparin , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Hematoma/chemically induced , Hematoma/diagnostic imaging , Heparin/adverse effects , Humans , Japan , Muscles , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Open Heart ; 8(2)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523054

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately coprescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change and associated monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe coprescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using routine clinical data from 24 million NHS patients in England. RESULTS: 20 000 of 164 000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in coprescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. International normalised ratio (INR) testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). CONCLUSIONS: Increased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people coprescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19 , Drug Substitution/standards , Factor Xa Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , State Medicine/standards , Warfarin/administration & dosage , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation Tests , Drug Monitoring , Drug Prescriptions , Drug Substitution/adverse effects , Drug Utilization/standards , England , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Safety , Primary Health Care/standards , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Warfarin/adverse effects
11.
Blood Adv ; 5(21): 4521-4534, 2021 11 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1511718

ABSTRACT

Heparin thromboprophylaxis is routinely administered during hospitalization for COVID-19. Because of the immune stimulation related to COVID-19, there is ongoing concern regarding a heightened incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and medRxiv database to identify studies that reported clinical and laboratory characteristics and/or the incidence of HIT in patients with COVID-19. The primary aim was to systematically review the clinical features and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 with confirmed HIT. The secondary objective was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of HIT in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A meta-analysis of 7 studies including 5849 patients revealed the pooled incidence of HIT in COVID-19 of 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-3.2%; I2 = 89%). The estimated incidences were 1.2% (95% CI, 0.3%-3.9%; I2 = 65%) vs 0.1% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.4%; I2 = 0%) in therapeutic vs prophylactic heparin subgroups, respectively. The pooled incidences of HIT were higher in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.6%-8.3%; I2 = 72.5%) compared with noncritically ill patients (0.1%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.4%: I2 = 0%). There were 19 cases of confirmed HIT and 1 with autoimmune HIT for clinical and laboratory characterization. The median time from heparin initiation to HIT diagnosis was 13.5 days (interquartile range, 10.75-16.25 days). Twelve (63%) developed thromboembolism after heparin therapy. In conclusion, the incidence of HIT in patients with COVID-19 was comparable to patients without COVID-19, with higher incidences with therapeutic anticoagulation and in critically ill patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombocytopenia , Venous Thromboembolism , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombocytopenia/chemically induced , Thrombocytopenia/epidemiology
12.
Int J Mol Sci ; 22(21)2021 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1512380

ABSTRACT

Heparin and its derivatives are saving thousands of human lives annually, by successfully preventing and treating thromboembolic events. Although the mode of action during anticoagulation is well studied, their influence on cell behavior is not fully understood as is the risk of bleeding and other side effects. New applications in regenerative medicine have evolved supporting production of cell-based therapeutics or as a substrate for creating functionalized matrices in biotechnology. The currently resurgent interest in heparins is related to the expected combined anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic and anti-viral action against COVID-19. Based on a concise summary of key biochemical and clinical data, this review summarizes the impact for manufacturing and application of cell therapeutics and highlights the need for discriminating the different heparins.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/chemistry , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/methods , Heparin/analogs & derivatives , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Biocompatible Materials/chemistry , Biocompatible Materials/therapeutic use , Cell Adhesion , Hemorrhage/etiology , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Mesenchymal Stem Cells/cytology , Mesenchymal Stem Cells/metabolism , Regenerative Medicine , Thromboembolism/drug therapy
13.
Aging Clin Exp Res ; 33(8): 2335-2343, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1491493

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. AIMS: To evaluate the effect of chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy, both with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), on prognosis of COVID-19 older patients. METHODS: Single-center prospective study conducted in the Emergency Department (ED) of a teaching hospital, referral center for COVID-19 in central Italy. We evaluated all the patients ≥ 65 years, consecutively admitted to our ED for confirmed COVID-19. We compared the clinical outcome of those who were on chronic OAC at ED admission with those who did not, using a propensity score matched paired cohort of controls. The primary study endpoint was all-cause in-hospital death. Patients were matched for age, sex, clinical comorbidities, and clinical severity at presentation (based on NEWS ≥ 6). Study parameters were assessed for association to all-cause in-hospital death by a multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify independent risk factor for survival. RESULTS: Although overall mortality was slightly higher for anticoagulated patients compared to controls (63.3% vs 43.5%, p = 0.012), the multivariate adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death was not significant (HR = 1.56 [0.78-3.12]; p = 0.208). Both DOACs (HR 1.46 [0.73-2.92]; p = 0.283) and VKAs (HR 1.14 [0.48-2.73]; p = 0.761) alone did not affect overall survival in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients hospitalized for COVID-19, chronic OAC therapy was not associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital death. Moreover, our data suggest similar outcome both for patients on VKAs or in patients on DOACs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Administration, Oral , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin K
14.
United European Gastroenterol J ; 9(9): 1081-1090, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1469560

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased. METHODS: We considered 4128 COVID-19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing on endoscopy diagnostic findings. RESULTS: A cumulative number of 97 patients (1.8%) with GI bleeding were identified in the LEOSS registry and COKA registry. Of 4128 patients from the LEOSS registry, 66 patients (1.6%) had a GI bleeding. The rate of GI bleeding in patients with intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 4.5%. The use of therapeutic dose of anticoagulants showed a significant association with the increased incidence of bleeding in the critical phase of disease. The Charlson comorbidity index and the COVID-19 severity index were significantly higher in the group of patients with GI bleeding than in the group of patients without GI bleeding (5.83 (SD = 2.93) vs. 3.66 (SD = 3.06), p < 0.01 and 3.26 (SD = 1.69) vs. 2.33 (SD = 1.53), p < 0.01, respectively). In the COKA registry 31 patients (2.5%) developed a GI bleeding. Of these, the source of bleeding was identified in upper GI tract in 21 patients (67.7%) with ulcer as the most frequent bleeding source (25.8%, n = 8) followed by gastroesophageal reflux (16.1%, n = 5). In three patients (9.7%) GI bleeding source was located in lower GI tract caused mainly by diverticular bleeding (6.5%, n = 2). In seven patients (22.6%) the bleeding localization remained unknown. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous research, comorbidities and disease severity correlate with the incidence of GI bleeding. Also, therapeutic anticoagulation seems to be associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding. Overall, the risk of GI bleeding seems not to be increased in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Child , Child, Preschool , Comorbidity , Critical Illness , Diverticular Diseases/diagnosis , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Gastroesophageal Reflux/complications , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Infant , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Peptic Ulcer/diagnosis , Registries , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
17.
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD008077, 2021 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453524

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. Several studies have been carried out to determine if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given; however, the results of these studies have differed, and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the second update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We also looked at haematoma at the injection site. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 June 2020. We undertook reference checking of included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data via Covidence software and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were pain intensity at injection site and size and incidence of bruising. The secondary outcomes of interest were size and incidence of haematoma at injection site. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study for this update, resulting in a total of five included studies with 503 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and caregivers (personnel) in any of the included studies. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds, and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies. Four studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection; meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in site pain intensity immediately after slow injection when compared to fast injection (MD -1.52, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.53; 140 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of three studies indicated that site pain intensity may be slightly reduced 48 hours after the slow heparin injection compared to fast injection (MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.51; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours, and two studies assessed bruise size at 60 hours. Meta-analysis showed there may be a reduction in bruise size 48 hours (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.02; 503 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.06; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. There was no evidence of a difference in bruise size 72 hours after slow injection compared to fast injection (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.06; 140 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluated incidence of bruising and showed there may be a reduction in bruise incidence 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; 444 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included studies measured size or incidence of haematoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Administering medication safely and enhancing patient comfort are the main aims of clinical nurses. In this review, we identified five RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity, bruise size and incidence. We found that pain may be slightly reduced 48 hours after slow injection. Similarly, there may be a reduction in bruise size and incidence after slow injection compared to fast injection 48 and 60 hours postinjection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. Accordingly, new trials with a more robust design, more participants, and a focus on different injection speeds will be useful in strengthening the certainty of the available evidence.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Contusions/prevention & control , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/administration & dosage , Injections, Subcutaneous/methods , Pain, Procedural/prevention & control , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Bias , Contusions/chemically induced , Contusions/pathology , Hematoma/chemically induced , Hematoma/pathology , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Humans , Injections, Subcutaneous/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement/methods , Pain, Procedural/etiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Time Factors
19.
Int J Med Inform ; 135: 104066, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454190

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Anticoagulants are high-risk medications with the potential to cause significant patient harm or death. Digital transformation is occurring in hospital practice and it is essential to implement effective, evidence-based strategies for these medications in an electronic medical record (EMR). OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise the literature to determine which EMR interventions have improved the safety and quality of therapeutic anticoagulation in an inpatient hospital setting. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the International Pharmaceutical Database were searched for suitable publications. Articles that met eligibility criteria up to September 2018 were included. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104899). The web-based software platform Covidence® was used for screening and data extraction. Studies were grouped according to the type of intervention and the outcomes measured. Where relevant, a bias assessment was performed. RESULTS: We found 2624 candidate articles and 27 met inclusion criteria. They included 3 randomised controlled trials, 4 cohort studies and 20 pre/post observational studies. There were four major interventions; computerised physician order entry (CPOE) (n = 4 studies), clinical decision support system (CDSS) methods (n = 21), dashboard utilisation (n = 1) and EMR implementation in general (n = 1). Seven outcomes were used to summarise the study results. Most research focused on prescribing or documentation compliance (n = 18). The remaining study outcome measures were: medication errors (n = 9), adverse drug events (n = 5), patient outcomes (morbidity/mortality/length of hospital stay/re-hospitalisation) (n = 5), quality use of anticoagulant (n = 4), end-user acceptance (n = 4), cost effectiveness (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Despite the research cited, limited benefits have been demonstrated to date. It appears healthcare organisations are yet to determine optimal, evidence-based-methods to improve EMR utilisation. Further evaluation, collaboration and work are necessary to measure and leverage the potential benefits of digital health systems. Most research evaluating therapeutic anticoagulation management within an EMR focused on prescribing or documentation compliance, with less focus on clinical impact to the patient or cost effectiveness. Evidence suggests that CPOE in conjunction with CDSS is needed to effectively manage therapeutic anticoagulation. Targets for robust research include the integration of 'stealth' alerts, nomograms into digital systems and the use of dashboards within clinical practice.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Electronic Health Records , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Humans , Inpatients , Medical Order Entry Systems , Medication Errors/prevention & control
20.
Pol Arch Intern Med ; 131(10)2021 10 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1451027

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION Prothrombotic coagulopathy in COVID­19 has led to a strong recommendation for thromboprophylaxis in all hospitalized patients, although there are large differences in the dosage regimens among hospitals and their outcomes remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES We aimed to determine the incidence of thrombotic events and bleeding in patients with COVID­19 using the approved local thromboprophylaxis protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS We adapted a self­developed pharmacological thromboprophylaxis protocol based on clinical and laboratory risk assessment of thrombosis in 350 consecutive patients (median age, 67 years) with confirmed COVID­19, treated in designated wards at a single center in Kraków, Poland from October 10, 2020, to April 30, 2021. We recorded in­hospital venous and arterial thromboembolic events, major or clinically relevant bleeding, and deaths along with other complications related to heparin dministration. RESULTS Thromboprophylaxis with low­molecular­weight heparin was administered in 99.7% of patients, 57 (16%) were treated in the intensive care unit. As many as 92% of patients followed the protocol for more than 85% of hospitalization time. Thromboembolic events occurred in 16 patients (4.4%): venous thromboembolism (n = 4; 1.1%), ischemic stroke (n = 4; 1.1%), and myocardial infarction (n = 8; 2.2%). Hemorrhagic complications were observed in 31 patients (9%), including fatal bleeds (n = 3;0.9%). The overall mortality was 13.4%. The prophylactic, intermediate, and therapeutic anticoagulation preventive strategies with heparin were not related to any of the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS The thromboprophylaxis protocol approved in our institution was associated with a relatively low risk of thromboembolism and bleeding, which provides additional evidence supporting the adoption of institutional strategies to improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID­19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Hospitals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...