scholarly journals Intermediate versus standard dose heparin prophylaxis in COVID-19 ICU patients: A propensity score-matched analysis

Author(s):  
Matthew Moll ◽  
Rebecca L. Zon ◽  
Katelyn W. Sylvester ◽  
Evan C. Chen ◽  
Auyon J. Ghosh ◽  
...  
1977 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.G. Sharnoff

From 1960 through 1975, 337 patients with surgically treated acute fracture of the hip received subcutaneously administered aqueous heparin sodium to prevent thromboembolic episodes. Four hundred and three patients received no heparin. Their incidence of fatal pulmonary embolism was 3.5 percent. Ninety-five patients receiving the original “small dose” heparin regimen from August 1960 to November 1967 had a 4.2 percent incidence of fatal thromboembolism. These had been administered heparin 8-10 hours or less before surgery. Beginning November 1967 the “small dose” heparin schedule was altered in hip fracture patients to start heparin prophylaxis immediately following hospital admission. One hundred and forty-seven patients treated with the latter schedule had 0.0 percent fatal thromboembolism with the dose modified according to a coagulation time test. The patients received 2,500 units on admission and every 6 hours until the day before operation. Then they were given 5,000 to 10,000 units. 8 to 10 hours before surgery and 2,500 units every 6 hours after surgery until they were fully mobilized. The altered “small dose” heparin regimen adequately monitored by the blood coagulation test, the Dale and Laidlaw Coagulometer, proved highly effective as measured by fatality rates.


1972 ◽  
Vol 10 (25) ◽  
pp. 100-100

Our article (November 10, p. 89) gave the basic NHS cost of a 7-day perioperative course (5000 i.u. 12-hourly) as 75 to 90p. MIMS gave the wrong price and in fact Weddel’s heparin costs the same as the other brands, and 75p. is the correct figure. It is worth noting that in the case of heparin, which is almost entirely used in hospitals, the actual cost is up to 25% less than the ‘basic NHS cost’, because most hospitals buy large quantities at special contract prices. The opposite is true for drugs dispensed by retail pharmacists, where the actual cost exceeds the basic NHS cost because it includes a dispensing fee and container allowance.


The Lancet ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 311 (8056) ◽  
pp. 160-161
Author(s):  
O.J.S. Buruma ◽  
A.R. Wintzen ◽  
E. Briët

2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim C. M. van der Elst ◽  
Anette Veringa ◽  
Jan G. Zijlstra ◽  
Albertus Beishuizen ◽  
Rob Klont ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT In critically ill patients, drug exposure may be influenced by altered drug distribution and clearance. Earlier studies showed that the variability in caspofungin exposure was high in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The primary objective of this study was to determine if the standard dose of caspofungin resulted in adequate exposure in critically ill patients. A multicenter prospective study in ICU patients with (suspected) invasive candidiasis was conducted in the Netherlands from November 2013 to October 2015. Patients received standard caspofungin treatment, and the exposure was determined on day 3 of treatment. An area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0–24) of 98 mg · h/liter was considered adequate exposure. In case of low exposure (i.e., <79 mg · h/liter, a ≥20% lower AUC0–24), the caspofungin dose was increased and the exposure reevaluated. Twenty patients were included in the study, of whom 5 had a positive blood culture. The median caspofungin AUC0–24 at day 3 was 78 mg · h/liter (interquartile range [IQR], 69 to 97 mg · h/liter). A low AUC0–24 (<79 mg · h/liter) was seen in 10 patients. The AUC0–24 was significantly and positively correlated with the caspofungin dose in mg/kg/day (P = 0.011). The median AUC0–24 with a caspofungin dose of 1 mg/kg was estimated using a pharmacokinetic model and was 114.9 mg · h/liter (IQR, 103.2 to 143.5 mg · h/liter). In conclusion, the caspofungin exposure in ICU patients in this study was low compared with that in healthy volunteers and other (non)critically ill patients, most likely due to a larger volume of distribution. A weight-based dose regimen is probably more suitable for patients with substantially altered drug distribution. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01994096.)


1988 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.B Dibble ◽  
P.A Kalra ◽  
M.A Orchard ◽  
J.H Turney ◽  
J.A Davies
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document