At baseline, 149 (98.7%) of 151 patients with overt DIC according to the ISTH definition were diagnosed as having SIC. Of the 49, 46 (93.9%) patients who developed overt DIC between days 2 and 4 had received a prior diagnosis of SIC. The sensitivity of baseline SIC for the prediction of death was significantly higher than that of overt DIC (86.8% vs 64.5%, P < .001). The sensitivity of SIC on days 2, 4, and 7 was significantly higher than those of overt DIC (96.1%, 92.3%, and 84.4% vs 67.1%, 57.7%, and 50.0%, P < .001, .001, and .001, respectively), although the specificity of SIC was lower at all time points.
BackgroundNo single anticoagulant has been proven effective for sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Thus, the concomitant use of antithrombin concentrate and recombinant thrombomodulin has been conceived. This observational study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy.MethodsA total of 510 septic DIC patients who received antithrombin substitution were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 228 were treated with antithrombin and recombinant thrombomodulin (combination therapy) and the rest were treated with antithrombin alone (monotherapy). Propensity score matching created 129 matched pairs, and 28-day all-cause mortality, DIC scores, the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores, and the incidence of bleeding were compared.ResultsA log-rank test revealed a significant association between combination therapy and a lower 28-day mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.82, P = 0.006) in the matched pairs. The DIC scores and the SOFA scores in the combination therapy group were significantly lower than those in the monotherapy group on Day 4 and Day 7. The incidence of bleeding did not differ between the groups (2.11 vs. 2.31%, P = 1.000).ConclusionsThe current study demonstrated the potential benefit of adding recombinant thrombomodulin to antithrombin. The co-administration of these two anticoagulants was associated with reduced mortality among patients with sepsis-induced DIC without increasing the risk of bleeding.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-017-0332-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The effectiveness of remdesivir on survival in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), especially in cases treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), is controversial. We investigated the effectiveness of remdesivir with corticosteroids on the survival of COVID‐19 patients in a real ICU clinical practice. For laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 patients admitted to the ICU of a tertiary hospital in Tokyo (April 2020–November 2021) and who received corticosteroids, the effectiveness of remdesivir for survival, stratified by interval length (within 9 or 10+ days), was retrospectively analyzed using Cox regression model. A total of 168 patients were included: 35 with no remdesivir use (control), 96 with remdesivir use within 9 days, and 37 with remdesivir use with an interval of 10+ days. In‐hospital mortality was 45.7%, 10.4%, and 16.2%, respectively. After adjusting for possible covariates including comorbidities, laboratory data, oxygen demand, or level of pneumonia, remdesivir use within 9 days from symptom onset reduced mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.025–0.428) compared to the control group. However, remdesivir use with an interval of 10+ days showed no significant association with mortality (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.117–1.524). Among COVID‐19 patients who received corticosteroids in ICU, remdesivir use within 9 days from symptom onset was associated with reduced in‐hospital mortality risk.
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.