Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Clinical Drug Investigation 8/2021

01.08.2021 | Original Research Article

Acetylsalicylic Acid Compared with Enoxaparin for the Prevention of Thrombosis and Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

verfasst von: Heba Wagih Abdelwahab, Shaker Wagih Shaltout, Hazem A. Sayed Ahmed, Ahmed Mahmoud Fouad, Eric Merrell, Jeffrey B. Riley, Rasha Salama, Ahmed Gharib Abdelrahman, Edward Darling, Ghada Fadel, Mohamed S. A. Elfar, Khaled Sabry, Jaffer Shah, Hossam Amin, Gary F. Nieman, Adel Mishriky, Hani Aiash

Erschienen in: Clinical Drug Investigation | Ausgabe 8/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background and Objective

Low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, aspirin) is a well-known and frequently studied drug for primary and secondary prevention of disease due to its anti-inflammatory and coagulopathic effects. COVID-19 complications are attributed to the role of thrombo-inflammation. Studies regarding the use of low-dose ASA in COVID-19 are limited. For this reason, we propose that the use of low-dose ASA may have protective effects in COVID-19–related thromboembolism and lung injury. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of low-dose ASA compared with enoxaparin, an anticoagulant, for the prevention of thrombosis and mechanical ventilation.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on COVID-19-confirmed hospitalized patients at the Mansoura University Quarantine Hospital, outpatients, and home-isolated patients from September to December 2020 in Mansoura governorate, Egypt. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of ASA compared with enoxaparin on thromboembolism, and mechanical ventilation needs.

Results

This study included 225 COVID-19 patients. Use of ASA-only (81–162 mg orally daily) was significantly associated with reduced thromboembolism (OR 0.163, p = 0.020), but both low-dose ASA and enoxaparin, and enoxaparin-only (0.5 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) daily as prophylactic dose or 1 mg/kg SC every 12 hours as therapeutic dose) were more protective (odds ratio [OR] 0.010, OR 0.071, respectively, p < 0.001). Neither ASA-only nor enoxaparin-only were associated with a reduction in mechanical ventilation needs. Concomitant use of low-dose ASA and enoxaparin was associated with reduced mechanical ventilation (OR 0.032, 95% CI 0.004–0.226, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Low-dose ASA-only use may reduce the incidence of COVID-19-associated thromboembolism, but the reduction may be less than that of enoxaparin-only, and both ASA and enoxaparin. Concomitant use of ASA and enoxaparin demonstrates promising results with regard to the reduction of thrombotic events, and mechanical ventilation needs.
Literatur
40.
Zurück zum Zitat PROTECT Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group, Cook D, Meade M, Guyatt G, Walter S, Heels-Ansdell D, et al. Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1305–14. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1014475.CrossRef PROTECT Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group, Cook D, Meade M, Guyatt G, Walter S, Heels-Ansdell D, et al. Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1305–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1056/​NEJMoa1014475.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Acetylsalicylic Acid Compared with Enoxaparin for the Prevention of Thrombosis and Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study
verfasst von
Heba Wagih Abdelwahab
Shaker Wagih Shaltout
Hazem A. Sayed Ahmed
Ahmed Mahmoud Fouad
Eric Merrell
Jeffrey B. Riley
Rasha Salama
Ahmed Gharib Abdelrahman
Edward Darling
Ghada Fadel
Mohamed S. A. Elfar
Khaled Sabry
Jaffer Shah
Hossam Amin
Gary F. Nieman
Adel Mishriky
Hani Aiash
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2021
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Clinical Drug Investigation / Ausgabe 8/2021
Print ISSN: 1173-2563
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1918
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-021-01061-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2021

Clinical Drug Investigation 8/2021 Zur Ausgabe