Effectiveness of antithrombotic prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic prophylaxis in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 acute infection has increased. Currently, most of the evidence relates to patients in intensive care units; however, there is little information on patients admitted to hospital wards and there is no consensus protocol on thromboprophylaxis during admission and after discharge. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients admitted with COVID-19 and 30 days after discharge. METHOD: A prospective observational study was conducted of patients admitted with COVID-19 in which the hospital thromboprophylaxis protocol was applied, classifying the patients as having a standard or high risk of thrombosis. Pharmacists performed a daily follow-up and actively intervened during admission and at discharge. The main outcome measure was the global incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) related to hospitalisation. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included, 98.23% of whom were admitted to a hospital ward. The incidence of hospital-acquired VTE was 1.77%. In 75.22% of the subjects, thromboprophylaxis was adjusted to the protocol during admission. A total of 23 pharmaceutical interventions were conducted, with an adherence of 52.17%. At discharge, 94.28% of the patients who had no haemorrhage and ≥4 points on the Padua Prediction Score required thromboprophylaxis, aligning with the protocol. The global incidence of haemorrhagic events during the follow-up period was 0.88%. CONCLUSION: The incidence of hospital-acquired VTE was lower than that described in the literature. Although it cannot be certain that it is directly related to the instituted protocol, the data can show that the management of prevention of VTE is being optimally performed at the hospital. Long-term studies are needed to evaluate the incidence after discharge, as well as to agree on a specific protocol in the COVID-19 population for the prevention of these events during hospitalisation and post-discharge.

Perforated peptic ulcer treated by simple closure and Helicobacter pylori eradication.

Simple closure followed by Helicobacter pylori (Hp) eradication has become the most used procedure in perforated ulcer treatment. However, its efficacy and safety are still to be determined. To assess recurrence and re-perforation rates, and as a secondary objective, to analyze Hp infection rates in perforated ulcer patients and controls, we conducted a prospective study. Ninety-two consecutive patients (ages: 19-96 years) were operated on between 1996 and 2002, and treated by simple closure followed by Hp eradication and NSAID avoidance. The data were prospectively collected in a database. Hp infection was diagnosed in 68 patients (73.9%). Thirty-four patients (37%) consumed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and 23 (25%) had both Hp infection and NSAID antecedents. The perforation was gastric in 4 cases and pre-pyloric, pyloric or duodenal in 88. There were postoperative complications in 24 patients (26%) and 4 patients died (4.3%). Hp eradication was shown in 46 patients. There was clinical ulcer recurrence in 4 (4.3%); in 3 of them recurrence manifested as re-perforation, all in gastric locations. Overall relapse and re-perforation 1-year crude rates were 6.1% and 4.1%, respectively. Crude rates for non-gastric ulcer recurrence were 0 at 1 year and 2.6% at 2 years and for non-gastric ulcer re-perforation rates were 0 at 1 and 2 years. This therapeutic strategy is associated with a low rate of recurrence and no re-perforations in case of duodenal, pyloric, or pre-pyloric perforated ulcers, but it is not acceptable for perforated gastric ulcers.