RESUMO
AIMS: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched several databases and included observational studies or clinical trials that compared the outcomes of the administration of LMWH and UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A total of nine studies comprising 9637 patients were included. Metanalysis showed that LMWH administration was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality and 28/30-day mortality compared with UFH administration {[relative risk (RR) 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.32-0.61; I2: 87.9%] and (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.24-0.86; I2: 78.4%), respectively}. Patient with LMWH had shorter duration of hospital and ICU length of stay compared with UFH {[weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.20; 95% CI -3.01 to -1.40; I2:0%] and (WMD -1.41; 95% CI -2.20 to -0.63; I2: 0%), respectively}. The risk of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation was lower in patients who received LMWH than in those who received UFH (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.81; I2: 67.3%). However, there was no difference in the incidence of bleeding with LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07-1.01; I2: 64.6%). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that administration of LMWH was associated with better outcomes compared with UFH in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Prospective cohorts and RCTs are urgently needed to explore the definitive effect of LMWH to provide direct high-certainty evidence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021271977.