Key result
Nadroparin prophylaxis fails to reduce post-discharge VTE compared to no prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients.
Why the study?
Practice varied between hospitals regarding VTE prophylaxis during COVID-19 home monitoring programmes, prompting evaluation of whether nadroparin prophylaxis affected VTE occurrence.
Does nadroparin prophylaxis reduce the occurrence of venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients discharged early to home monitoring?
Cohort (n=663)
Yes
Does nadroparin prophylaxis reduce the occurrence of venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients discharged early to home monitoring?
Extended thrombotic prophylaxis with nadroparin did not significantly reduce VTE occurrence or readmissions in COVID-19 patients discharged early to home monitoring.
Does not support routine nadroparin prophylaxis after early COVID-19 discharge; challenges prior suggestions of benefit but leaves open need for RCTs.
Introduction/Background Due to limits in available staff and space during the COVID-19 pandemic, home monitoring programmes were introduced, reducing strain on resources, and preventing readmissions. Several hospitals included prophylaxis for venous thrombotic events (VTE), as COVID-19 appeared to be thrombogenic. Other hospitals did not, expecting patients to be more mobile while at home. Our aim was to determine whether the administration of nadroparin has led to a difference in VTE occurrence between two groups of previously included patients. Materials and methods Retrospective cohort study of two cohorts included in home monitoring with the same protocol, except for nadroparin prophylaxis. Results 663 patients were analysed in equal groups from two hospitals. No significant difference was found in occurrence of VTE after discharge, readmissions in general or readmissions due to VTE in otherwise comparable groups. Discussion As opposed to trials determining thrombotic prophylaxis was of benefit after discharge due to COVID-19, we found no difference between our groups. Our study was retrospective and comprised data compiled over almost two years, which provides a relatively large sample size and overview through different treatment regimes. Conclusion For the future, thrombotic prophylaxis for COVID-19 home monitoring might not be indicated and reconsidered for different home monitoring programmes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoff et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in COVID-19 (n=663). Nadroparin prophylaxis vs. No nadroparin prophylaxis was evaluated on Occurrence of VTE after discharge, readmissions in general, or readmissions due to VTE. Nadroparin prophylaxis showed no significant difference in VTE occurrence or readmissions compared to no prophylaxis in 663 COVID-19 patients on home monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: