Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMJ ; 375: n2400, 2021 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34649864

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial , Biomarkers/blood , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index
2.
medRxiv ; 2021 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34268513

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Heparin, in addition to its anticoagulant properties, has anti-inflammatory and potential anti-viral effects, and may improve endothelial function in patients with Covid-19. Early initiation of therapeutic heparin could decrease the thrombo-inflammatory process, and reduce the risk of critical illness or death. METHODS: We randomly assigned moderately ill hospitalized ward patients admitted for Covid-19 with elevated D-dimer level to therapeutic or prophylactic heparin. The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 28 days, the primary composite outcome occurred in 37 of 228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin, and 52 of 237 patients (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p=0.12). Four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin died compared with 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.22; 95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65). The composite of all-cause mortality or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 (10.1%) in the therapeutic heparin group and 38 (16.0%) in the prophylactic heparin group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95%-CI, 0.34 to 1.02). Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.9%) with therapeutic heparin and 4 patients (1.7%) with prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.52; 95%-CI, 0.09 to 2.85). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill ward patients with Covid-19 and elevated D-dimer level, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome but decreased the odds of death at 28 days. Trial registration numbers: NCT04362085 ; NCT04444700.

3.
Int Wound J ; 7(6): 502-7, 2010 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20860554

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and validate the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule (CWIS), a disease-specific quality-of-life measure, in a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) population. Patients with DFUs have restrictions as part of their treatment and rehabilitation, which can affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Because of the high number of comorbidities experienced in diabetes, a disease-specific quality-of-life measure is needed to best assess the affect of a foot ulcer on HRQoL. Patients with DFUs completed the CWIS and a World Health Organization generic quality-of-life questionnaire. Validity was assessed by comparing domains of the questionnaires. Patients were categorised using the University of Texas wound classification system. Mean CWIS scores were compared between categories to assess the questionnaire's ability to differentiate wound severity. Patients with open ulcers scored significantly lower on the CWIS than those with healed ulcers. Correlations between questionnaire domains were as follows: Social Life with Social Functioning (r = 0·641, P < 0·001); Well-Being with General Health (r = 0·533, P < 0·01); Physical Symptoms and Daily Living with Physical Functioning (r = 0·631, P < 0·01) and Health-Related Quality of Life with Vitality (r = 0·425, P < 0·01). However, there was no significant difference in mean CWIS scores between categories of wound severity. We have demonstrated the ability of the CWIS in assessing HRQoL in a DFU population and its ability to differentiate between healed and non healed states.


Subject(s)
Attitude to Health , Diabetic Foot/psychology , Quality of Life/psychology , Sickness Impact Profile , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Activities of Daily Living/psychology , Adaptation, Psychological , Aged , Diabetic Foot/classification , Diabetic Foot/complications , Discriminant Analysis , Female , Health Status , Humans , Linear Models , Male , Middle Aged , Nursing Assessment/methods , Nursing Evaluation Research , Severity of Illness Index , Social Behavior , Wound Healing
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...