4.2 Article

Association of anticoagulation dose and survival in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A retrospective propensity score-weighted analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 106, 期 2, 页码 165-174

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13533

关键词

anticoagulation; COVID-19; heparin; novel coronavirus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that higher doses of anticoagulants were associated with lower mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Both therapeutic and prophylactic doses of anticoagulants were shown to reduce the risk of death, but patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulants were more prone to major bleeding.
Background Hypercoagulability may contribute to COVID-19 pathogenicity. The role of anticoagulation (AC) at therapeutic (tAC) or prophylactic doses (pAC) is unclear. Objectives We evaluated the impact on survival of different AC doses in COVID-19 patients. Methods Retrospective, multi-center cohort study of consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March 13 and May 5, 2020. Results A total of 3480 patients were included (mean age, 64.5 years [17.0]; 51.5% female; 52.1% black and 40.6% white). 18.5% (n = 642) required intensive care unit (ICU) stay. 60.9% received pAC (n = 2121), 28.7% received >= 3 days of tAC (n = 998), and 10.4% (n = 361) received no AC. Propensity score (PS) weighted Kaplan-Meier plot demonstrated different 25-day survival probability in the tAC and pAC groups (57.5% vs 50.7%). In a PS-weighted multivariate proportional hazards model, AC was associated with reduced risk of death at prophylactic (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.22-0.54]) and therapeutic doses (HR 0.14 [95% CI 0.05-0.23]) compared to no AC. Major bleeding occurred more frequently in tAC patients (81 [8.1%]) compared to no AC (20 [5.5%]) or pAC (46 [2.2%]) subjects. Conclusions Higher doses of AC were associated with lower mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Prospective evaluation of efficacy and risk of AC in COVID-19 is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据