Background COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. MethodsWe did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0•3-0•7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34•8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41•3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0•86 [95% CI 0•59-1•22], p=0•40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3•64 [95% CI 1•61-8•27], p=0•0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagul...
BackgroundSudden death has been considered the main cause of death in patients with Chagas heart disease. Nevertheless, this information comes from a period before the introduction of drugs that changed the natural history of heart failure. We sought to study the mode of death of patients with heart failure caused by Chagas heart disease, comparing with non-Chagas cardiomyopathy.Methods and resultsWe examined the REMADHE trial and grouped patients according to etiology (Chagas vs non-Chagas) and mode of death. The primary end-point was all-cause, heart failure and sudden death mortality; 342 patients were analyzed and 185 (54.1%) died. Death occurred in 56.4% Chagas patients and 53.7% non-Chagas patients. The cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality and heart failure mortality was significantly higher in Chagas patients compared to non-Chagas. There was no difference in the cumulative incidence of sudden death mortality between the two groups. In the Cox regression model, Chagas etiology (HR 2.76; CI 1.34–5.69; p = 0.006), LVEDD (left ventricular end diastolic diameter) (HR 1.07; CI 1.04–1.10; p<0.001), creatinine clearance (HR 0.98; CI 0.97–0.99; p = 0.006) and use of amiodarone (HR 3.05; CI 1.47–6.34; p = 0.003) were independently associated with heart failure mortality. LVEDD (HR 1.04; CI 1.01–1.07; p = 0.005) and use of beta-blocker (HR 0.52; CI 0.34–0.94; p = 0.014) were independently associated with sudden death mortality.ConclusionsIn severe Chagas heart disease, progressive heart failure is the most important mode of death. These data challenge the current understanding of Chagas heart disease and may have implications in the selection of treatment choices, considering the mode of death.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrails.gov NCT00505050 (REMADHE)
AimsTo evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential beneficial effects of left cardiac sympathetic denervation (LCSD) in systolic heart failure (HF) patients. Methods and resultsIn this prospective, randomized pilot study, inclusion criteria were New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II or III, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, sinus rhythm, and resting heart rate .65 b.p.m., despite optimal medical therapy (MT). Fifteen patients were randomly assigned either to MT alone or MT plus LCSD. The primary endpoint was safety, measured by mortality in the first month of follow-up and morbidity according to prespecified criteria. Secondary endpoints were exercise capacity, quality of life, LVEF, muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels and 24 h Holter mean heart rate before and after 6 months. We studied clinical effects in long-term follow-up. Ten patients underwent LCSD. There were no adverse events attributable to surgery. In the LCSD group, LVEF improved from 25 + 6.6 to 33 + 5.2 (P ¼ 0.03); 6 min walking distance improved from 167 + 35 to 198 + 47 m (P ¼ 0.02). Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) score physical dimension changed from 21 + 5 to 15 + 7 (P ¼ 0.06). The remaining analysed variables were unchanged. During 848 + 549 days of follow-up, in the MT group, three patients either died or underwent cardiac transplantation (CT), while in the LCSD group six were alive without CT. ConclusionsLCSD was feasible and seemed to be safe in systolic HF patients. Its beneficial effects warrant the development of a larger randomized trial.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.