1.
EXPRESS: Safety and Efficacy of Remote Ischemic Conditioning for the Treatment of Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Proof-of-Concept Randomized Controlled Trial
Zhao W, Jiang F, Li S, Liu G, Wu C, Wang Y, Ren C, Zhang J, Gu F, Zhang Q, et al
International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society. 2021;:17474930211006580
Abstract
Background Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) can promote hematoma resolution, attenuate brain edema, and improve neurological recovery in animal models of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Aims This study aimed to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of RIC in patients with ICH.Methods In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 40 subjects with supratentorial ICH presenting within 24-48 hours of onset were randomly assigned to receive medical therapy plus RIC for consecutive 7 days or medical therapy alone. The primary safety outcome was neurological deterioration within 7 days of enrollment, and the primary efficacy outcome was the changes of hematoma volume on CT images. Other outcomes included hematoma resolution rate at 7 d ([hematoma volume at 7 d â hematoma volume at baseline]/hematoma volume at baseline), perihematomal edema (PHE), and functional outcome at 90 days. Results The mean age was 59.3±11.7 years and hematoma volume was 13.9±4.5 mL. No subjects experienced neurological deterioration within 7 days of enrollment, and no subject died or experienced RIC-associated adverse events during the study period. At baseline, the hematoma volumes were 14.19±5.07 mL in the control group and 13.55±3.99 mL in the RIC group, and they were 8.54±3.99 mL and 6.95±2.71 mL at 7 days after enrollment, respectively, not a significant difference (p>0.05 each). The hematoma resolution rate in the RIC group (49.25±9.17%) was significantly higher than in the control group (41.92±9.14%; MD, 7.3%; 95% CI, 1.51% to 13.16%; p=0.015). The absolute PHE volume was 17.27±8.34 mL in the control group and 12.92±7.30 mL in the RIC group at 7 days after enrollment, not a significant between-group difference (p=0.087), but the relative PHE in the RIC group (1.77±0.39) was significantly lower than in the control group (2.02±0.27; MD, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.39-0.47; p=0.023). At 90-day follow-up, 13 subjects (65%) in the RIC group and 12 subjects (60%) in the control group achieved favorable functional outcomes (mRS scoreâ¤3), not a significant between-group difference (p=0.744).Conclusions Repeated daily RIC for consecutive 7 days was safe and well-tolerated in patients with ICH, and it may be able to improve hematoma resolution rate and reduce relative PHE. However, effects RIC on the absolute hematoma and PHE volume and functional outcomes in this patient population need further investigations.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03930940.
2.
Standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults with severe COVID-19: a multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial
Perepu US, Chambers I, Wahab A, Ten Eyck P, Wu C, Dayal S, Sutamtewagul G, Bailey SR, Rosenstein LJ, Lentz SR
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis : JTH. 2021
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with coagulopathy but the optimal prophylactic anticoagulation therapy remains uncertain and may depend on COVID-19 severity. OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 treated with standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin. METHODS We conducted a multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing standard prophylactic dose versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or had laboratory evidence of coagulopathy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin or intermediate weight-adjusted dose enoxaparin. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included arterial or venous thromboembolism and major bleeding. RESULTS A total of 176 patients (99 males and 77 females) underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat population, all-cause mortality at 30 days was 15% for intermediate dose enoxaparin and 21% for standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.45; P=0.31 by chi-square test). Unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between intermediate and standard dose enoxaparin (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 1.37; P=0.28). Arterial or venous thrombosis occurred in 13% of patients assigned to intermediate dose enoxaparin and 9% of patients assigned to standard dose enoxaparin. Major bleeding occurred in 2% of patients in each arm. CONCLUSION In hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19, standard prophylactic dose and intermediate dose enoxaparin did not differ significantly in preventing death or thrombosis at 30 days.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit (n= 176).
Intervention
Enoxaparin intermediate dose (n= 88).
Comparison
Enoxaparin standard dose (n= 88).
Outcome
In the intention-to-treat population, all-cause mortality at 30 days was 15% for intermediate dose enoxaparin and 21% for standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin. Unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modelling demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between intermediate and standard dose enoxaparin. Arterial or venous thrombosis occurred in 13% of patients assigned to intermediate dose enoxaparin and 9% of patients assigned to standard dose enoxaparin. Major bleeding occurred in 2% of patients in each arm.
3.
Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial
Sholzberg M, Tang GH, Rahhal H, AlHamzah M, Kreuziger LB, Áinle FN, Alomran F, Alayed K, Alsheef M, AlSumait F, et al
BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2021;375:n2400
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/m(2). 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.