Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Yale/YNHH Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut, United States.
Thromb Haemost. 2022 Jan;122(1):131-141. doi: 10.1055/a-1485-2372. Epub 2021 Jun 6.
Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown.
This article reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding.
Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]: 62 [50, 71] years; 237 [42.2%] women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, = 0.11). Findings were similar for other efficacy outcomes, and in the landmark analysis from days 31 to 90 (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.45-5.06). There were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24).
Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up.
血栓并发症被认为是 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的主要肺外表现之一。在这些患者中,最佳的预防性抗血栓治疗类型和持续时间仍不清楚。
本文报告了中度与标准剂量预防抗凝治疗重症 COVID-19 患者的疗效比较(INSPIRATION)研究的最终(90 天)结果。COVID-19 住院患者被随机分为中剂量组或标准剂量组,接受 30 天的预防性抗凝治疗,无论患者是否出院。主要疗效终点是经裁决的静脉或动脉血栓形成、体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)治疗或全因死亡的复合终点。主要安全性终点是大出血。
在 600 名随机患者中,562 名进入改良意向治疗分析(中位年龄[四分位间距 1,3]:62[50,71]岁;237[42.2%]女性),其中 336 名(59.8%)患者存活至出院。中剂量组有 132 名(47.8%)患者和标准剂量组有 130 名(45.4%)患者发生主要结局(风险比[HR]:1.21,95%置信区间[CI]:0.95-1.55, = 0.11)。其他疗效终点和第 31 至 90 天的里程碑分析结果相似(HR:1.59,95%CI:0.45-5.06)。中剂量组有 7 例(2.5%)大出血事件(包括 3 例致死事件),标准剂量组有 4 例(1.4%)大出血事件(均无致死)(HR:1.82,95%CI:0.53-6.24)。
与标准剂量预防性抗凝相比,中剂量组在 90 天随访时并未降低死亡、ECMO 治疗或静脉或动脉血栓形成的复合终点发生率。