Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

Association of Abnormal Cardiac Biomarkers and Cardiovascular Complications, with Mortality in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Latin America

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a correlation between cardiac complications and elevated cardiac biomarkers, which are linked to poorer clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine the clinical impact of cardiac biomarkers in COVID-19 patients in Latin America.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The CARDIO COVID 19-20 Registry is a multicenter observational study across 44 hospitals in Latin America and the Caribbean. It included hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 476) who underwent troponin, natriuretic peptide, and D-dimer tests. Patients were grouped based on the number of positive biomarkers.

RESULTS

Among the 476 patients tested, 139 had one positive biomarker (Group C), 190 had two (Group B), 118 had three (Group A), and 29 had none (Group D). A directly proportional relationship was observed between the number of positive biomarkers and the incidence of decompensated heart failure. Similarly, there was a proportional relationship between the number of positive biomarkers and increased mortality. In Group B, patients with elevated troponin and natriuretic peptide and those with elevated troponin and D-dimer had 1.4 and 1.5 times higher mortality, respectively, than those with elevated natriuretic peptide and D-dimer.

CONCLUSIONS

In Latin American COVID-19 patients, a higher number of positive cardiac biomarkers is associated with increased cardiovascular complications and mortality. These findings suggest that cardiac biomarkers should be utilized to guide acute-phase treatment strategies.

Impact of a History of COVID-19 Infection on Postoperative Outcomes for Free Flap Patients

Objectives: This study examines the impact of a history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection on patients' outcomes after microvascular free flap surgery and to examine the recommendations on when to perform microvascular surgery after a COVID-19 infection. Methods: A retrospective chart review using the TriNetX database was completed on March 5, 2023. Two cohorts were created: (1) patients who had a positive COVID-19 diagnosis within 1 year before microvascular free flap surgery, and (2) patients with no history of COVID-19 who underwent free flap surgery. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify procedures and International Classification of Diseases-10 codes were used to identify outcomes. Results: There was a total of 31,505 patients who underwent microvascular free flap surgery, 500 of whom had a diagnosis of COVID-19 within 1 year of free flap surgery and 31,005 without history of COVID-19. There was increased risk of sepsis, surgical site infection (SSI), generalized infection, gangrene, dehiscence, hematoma, seroma, intensive care unit admission, and death in patients who underwent free flap surgery within a year of COVID-19 infection. After propensity score matching, there were 498 patients in both groups. Increased risk remained for SSI and gangrene in patients with a history of COVID-19 after matching. When comparing surgical timing between 0 to 2 months after COVID-19 infection and 2 to 12 months after COVID-19 infection, there were no significant differences between groups. Conclusions: After propensity score matching, patients with a history of COVID-19 infection were at increased risk for SSI and gangrene. However, many flap surgeries cannot be delayed. This study may help counsel patients regarding the possible complications after surgery and provide a heightened awareness in the surgical team of a possible increase in infectious complications in this population. Additional studies should investigate optimal timing of free flap surgery after COVID-19 infection and ways to mitigate the risk of infectious complications.

Prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

Several reviews have been conducted on thromboprophylaxis in non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to investigate the impact of prophylactic-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in this population.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic-dose DOACs with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 until September 2023. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events, while major bleeding events were the primary safety outcome. We expressed continuous outcome data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and dichotomous outcome data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.

Results

We included six RCTs involving 4307 patients. Prophylactic-dose DOAC therapy compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with significantly decreased risks of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events (1.43% vs 2.67% (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.34-0.82, P = 0.004, I2 = 3%)). Major bleeding events were infrequent, and we detected no significant differences between patients assigned to prophylactic-dose DOACs vs placebo or no treatment (0.19% vs 0.05% (RR = 2.50; 95% CI = 0.49-12.87, P = 0.27, I2 = 0%)). The use of prophylactic-dose DOACs was also associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism, with no difference in all-cause mortality, arterial thromboembolism, hospitalisations, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding between two groups. Sensitivity analyses with the leave-one-out method for the primary efficacy and safety outcome did not change the effect estimate substantially.

Conclusions

We found that prophylaxis-dose DOACs could significantly improve clinical outcomes and reduce venous thrombotic events without increasing the risk of major bleeding events compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42023466889.

2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, nutrition, sleep, and obesity) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose control, and metabolic syndrome) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, brain health, complications of pregnancy, kidney disease, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, sudden cardiac arrest, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, valvular disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

METHODS

The AHA, through its Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States and globally to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update with review of published literature through the year before writing. The 2024 AHA Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort in 2023 by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and AHA staff members. The AHA strives to further understand and help heal health problems inflicted by structural racism, a public health crisis that can significantly damage physical and mental health and perpetuate disparities in access to health care, education, income, housing, and several other factors vital to healthy lives. This year's edition includes additional global data, as well as data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with an enhanced focus on health equity across several key domains.

RESULTS

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

COVID-19 and Cardiovascular Diseases: From Cellular Mechanisms to Clinical Manifestations

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), quickly spread worldwide and led to over 581 million confirmed cases and over 6 million deaths as 1 August 2022. The binding of the viral surface spike protein to the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor is the primary mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Not only highly expressed in the lung, ACE2 is also widely distributed in the heart, mainly in cardiomyocytes and pericytes. The strong association between COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been demonstrated by increased clinical evidence. Preexisting CVD risk factors, including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes etc., increase susceptibility to COVID-19. In turn, COVID-19 exacerbates the progression of CVD, including myocardial damage, arrhythmia, acute myocarditis, heart failure, and thromboembolism. Moreover, cardiovascular risks post recovery and the vaccination-associated cardiovascular problems have become increasingly evident. To demonstrate the association between COVID-19 and CVD, this review detailly illustrated the impact of COVID-19 on different cells (cardiomyocytes, pericytes, endothelial cells, and fibroblasts) in myocardial tissue and provides an overview of the clinical manifestations of cardiovascular involvements in the pandemic. Finally, the issues related to myocardial injury post recovery, as well as vaccination-induced CVD, has also been emphasized.

Intermediate dose enoxaparin in hospitalized patients with moderate-severe COVID-19: a pilot phase II single-arm study, INHIXACOVID19

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials in non-critically ill COVID-19 patients showed that therapeutic-dose heparin increased survival with reduced organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis, albeit with increased bleeding risk. The purpose of the study is to assess the safety of intermediate dose enoxaparin in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

METHODS

A phase II single-arm interventional prospective study including patients receiving intermediate dose enoxaparin once daily according to body weight: 60 mg for 45-60 kg, 80 mg for 61-100 kg or 100 mg for > 100 kg for 14 days, with dose adjustment according to anti-factor Xa activity (target range: 0.4-0.6 UI/ml); an observational cohort (OC) included patients receiving enoxaparin 40 mg day for comparison. Follow-up was 90 days. Primary outcome was major bleeding within 30 and 90 days after treatment onset. Secondary outcome was the composite of all-cause 30 and 90-day mortality rates, disease severity at the end of treatment, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of ICU stay, length of hospitalization. All outcomes were adjudicated by an independent committee and analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSm).

RESULTS

Major bleeding was similar in IC (1/98 1.02%) and in the OC (none), with only one event observed in a patient receiving concomitantly anti-platelet therapy. The composite outcome was observed in 53/98 patients (54%) in the IC and 132/203 (65%) patients in the OC (p = 0.07) before PSm, while it was observed in 50/90 patients (55.6%) in the IC and in 56/90 patients (62.2%) in the OC after PSm (p = 0.45). Length of hospitalization was lower in the IC than in OC [median 13 (IQR 8-16) vs 14 (11-21) days, p = 0.001], however it lost statistical significance after PSm (p = 0.08). At 30 days, two patients had venous thrombosis and two pulmonary embolism in the OC. Time to first negative RT-PCR were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Weight adjusted intermediate dose heparin with anti-FXa monitoring is safe with potential positive impact on clinical course in COVID-19 non-critically ill patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study INHIXACOVID19 was registred on ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial registration number (TRN) NCT04427098 on 11/06/2020.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Cochrane Corner: The use of anticoagulants in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

Background

In this Cochrane Corner, we highlight the main findings of a Cochrane Review by Flumignan et al. entitled 'Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19' and discuss the implications of these findings for research and practice in South Africa. In particular, we underscore the need for additional, high-quality, randomised controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 illness. Individuals in the intensive care unit and those hospitalised with another illness who are incidentally found to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 should still only be treated with prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin.

Contributions of the study

This Cochrane Corner summarises findings in a recent systematic review on the use of anticoagulation in people hospitalised with COVID-19, and provides insights on the implications of these findings for implementation by clinicians in South Africa. It highlights the need for clinicians to balance the benefits and harms of providing an anticoagulant, while considering the patients underlying risk for bleeding and thromboembolism.

A Systematic Review of the Role of Purinergic Signalling Pathway in the Treatment of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global health concern. Three years since its origin, despite the approval of vaccines and specific treatments against this new coronavirus, there are still high rates of infection, hospitalization, and mortality in some countries. COVID-19 is characterised by a high inflammatory state and coagulation disturbances that may be linked to purinergic signalling molecules such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), adenosine (ADO), and purinergic receptors (P1 and P2). These nucleotides/nucleosides play important roles in cellular processes, such as immunomodulation, blood clot formation, and vasodilation, which are affected during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, drugs targeting this purinergic pathway, currently used for other pathologies, are being evaluated in preclinical and clinical trials for COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the potential of these drugs to control the release, degradation, and reuptake of these extracellular nucleotides and nucleosides to treat COVID-19. Drugs targeting the P1 receptors could have therapeutic efficacy due to their capacity to modulate the cytokine storm and the immune response. Those acting in P2X7, which is linked to NLRP3 inflammasome activation, are also valuable candidates as they can reduce the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, according to the available preclinical and clinical data, the most promising medications to be used for COVID-19 treatment are those that modulate platelets behaviour and blood coagulation factors, mainly through the P2Y12 receptor.

Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), inexpensive generic drugs like statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs, especially if used in combination, might be the only practical way to save the lives of patients with severe COVID-19. These drugs will already be available in all countries on the first pandemic day. Because they target the host response to infection instead of the virus, they could be used to save lives during any pandemic. Observational studies show that inpatient statin treatment reduces 28–30-day mortality but randomized controlled trials have failed to show this benefit. Combination treatment has been tested for antivirals and dexamethasone but, with the exception of one observational study in Belgium, not for inexpensive generic drugs. Future pandemic research must include testing combination generic drug treatments that could be used in LMICs.

Versorgung von Lebertransplantierten während der COVID-19-Pandemie

Hintergrund

Die Pandemie durch Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) stellt eine anhaltende Herausforderung für das gesamte Gesundheitssystem dar, darunter auch für die Versorgung von Lebertransplantierten, die eine besondere Risikogruppe darstellen.

Fragestellung

Ziel der Arbeit ist es, einen praxisnahen Überblick über die aktualisierte S1-Leitlinie zur Versorgung von Lebertransplantierten während der COVID-19-Pandemie zu geben.

Material und Methoden

Basis dieser Übersicht ist die aktualisierte Leitlinie (Stand 15.06.2022) der Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie, Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie (DGAV).

Ergebnisse

Während der Pandemie sollen Lebertransplantationsprogramme inklusive Evaluation, Organspenden und Nachsorge möglichst unverändert fortgeführt werden, da sie eine lebensrettende Therapieoption darstellen. Je nach Pandemielage sind jedoch Anpassungen möglich. Die Impfungen gegen „severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2“ (SARS-CoV-2) sollen entsprechend den Empfehlungen der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) erfolgen, und Antikörperbestimmungen sind sinnvoll. Im Fall einer Infektion stehen verschiedene Therapieoptionen zur Verfügung. Eine präventive Anpassung der Immunsuppression soll nicht erfolgen, eine Anpassung von Mycophenolat-Mofetil-haltigen Regimen sowie eine Anpassung bei SARS-CoV-2-Infektion kann jedoch sinnvoll sein.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die mittlerweile zur Verfügung stehende Immunisierung sowie die antivirale/immunmodulierende Therapie erlauben eine deutlich verbesserte Prävention und Therapie von COVID-19 bei Lebertransplantierten. Eine frühzeitige Erkennung durch engmaschige Testung ist von hoher Wichtigkeit. Die verbesserten pharmakologischen Optionen ermöglichen unter Risiko-Nutzen-Abwägung auch eine Transplantation von positiven Spendern oder Empfängern.

Effects of 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone on thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19 - a post hoc analysis of the randomized, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolism is more common in patients with critical COVID-19 than in other critically ill patients, and inflammation has been proposed as a possible mechanism. The aim of this study was to investigate if 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily reduced the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism in patients with critical COVID-19.

METHODS

Using additional data on thromboembolism and bleeding we did a post hoc analysis of Swedish and Danish intensive care unit patients enrolled in the blinded randomized COVID STEROID 2 trial comparing 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death or thromboembolism during intensive care. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolism, major bleeding, and any bleeding during intensive care.

RESULTS

We included 357 patients. Whilst in intensive care, 53 patients (29%) in the 12 mg group and 53 patients (30%) in the 6 mg group met the primary outcome with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of - 0.5% (95% CI - 10 to 9.5%, p = 1.00) and an adjusted OR of 0.93 (CI 95% 0.58 to 1.49, p = 0.77). We found no firm evidence of differences in any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with critical COVID-19, 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily did not result in a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism. However, uncertainty remains due to the limited number of patients.

Percutaneous Large-Bore Pulmonary Thrombectomy with the FlowTriever Device: Initial Experience in Intermediate-High and High-Risk Patients

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective cohort study investigates outcomes of patients with intermediate-high and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) who were treated with transfemoral mechanical thrombectomy (MT) using the large-bore Inari FlowTriever aspiration catheter system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-seven patients (mean age 56.1 ± 15.3 years) treated with MT for PE between 04/2021 and 11/2021 were reviewed. Risk stratification was performed according to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Clinical and hemodynamic characteristics before and after the procedure were compared with the paired Student's t test, and duration of hospital stay was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Procedure-related adverse advents were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 27 patients treated, 18 were classified as high risk. Mean right-to-left ventricular ratio on baseline CT was 1.7 ± 0.6. After MT, a statistically significant reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressures from 35.9 ± 9.6 to 26.1 ± 9.0 mmHg (p = 0.002) and heart rates from 109.4 ± 22.5 to 82.8 ± 13.8 beats per minute (p < 0.001) was achieved. Two patients died of prolonged cardiogenic shock. Three patients died of post-interventional complications of which a paradoxical embolism can be considered related to MT. One patient needed short cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the procedure due to clot displacement. Patients with PE as primary driver of clinical instability had a median intensive care unit (ICU) stay of 2 days (0.5-3.5 days). Patients who developed PE as a complication of an underlying medical condition spent 11 days (9.5-12.5 days) in the ICU.

CONCLUSION

In this small study population of predominantly high-risk PE patients, large-bore MT without adjunctive thrombolysis was feasible with an acceptable procedure-related complication rate.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalised people and the third most common cause of mortality in surgical patients. People undergoing bariatric surgery have the additional risk factor of being overweight. Although VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients is well established, the best way to prevent VTE in those undergoing bariatric surgery is less clear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions (alone or in combination) on venous thromboembolism and other health outcomes in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention or started at a different time point, another pharmacological intervention, no intervention or placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in males and females of any age undergoing bariatric surgery comparing pharmacological interventions for VTE (alone or in combination) with the same pharmacological intervention administered at a different dose or frequency, the same pharmacological intervention started at a different time point, a different pharmacological intervention, no treatment or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. VTE and 2. major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. VTE-related mortality, 3. PE, 4. DVT, 5. adverse effects and 6. quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with 1045 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all participants. Four RCTs (597 participants) compared higher-dose heparin to standard-dose heparin: one of these studies (139 participants) used unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the other three (458 participants) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). One study compared heparin versus pentasaccharide (198 participants), and one study compared starting heparin before versus after bariatric surgery (100 participants). One study (150 participants) compared combined mechanical and pharmacological (enoxaparin) prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone. The duration of the interventions ranged from seven to 15 days, and follow-up ranged from 10 to 180 days. Higher-dose heparin versus standard-dose heparin Compared to standard-dose heparin, higher-dose heparin may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.99; 4 studies, 597 participants) or major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.96; I2 = 8%; 4 studies, 597 participants; low-certainty) in people undergoing bariatric surgery. The evidence on all-cause mortality, VTE-related mortality, PE, DVT and adverse events (thrombocytopenia) is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). Heparin versus pentasaccharide Heparin compared to a pentasaccharide after bariatric surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants) or DVT (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.61; 1 study, 175 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, PE and mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). Heparin started before versus after the surgical procedure Starting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before surgery versus after surgery may result in little or no difference in the risk of VTE (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants) or DVT (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants). The evidence on major bleeding, all-cause mortality and VTE-related mortality is uncertain (effect not estimable or very low-certainty evidence). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on PE or adverse effects, as the study did not measure these outcomes. Combined mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis versus mechanical prophylaxis alone Combining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty). We were unable to assess the effect of this intervention on major bleeding or morality (effect not estimable), or on PE or adverse events (not measured). No studies measured quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Higher-dose heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism or major bleeding in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to standard-dose heparin. Heparin may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to pentasaccharide. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin compared to pentasaccharide on major bleeding. Starting prophylaxis with heparin 12 hours before bariatric surgery may make little or no difference to venous thromboembolism in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to starting heparin after bariatric surgery. There are inadequate data to draw conclusions about the effects of heparin started before versus after surgery on major bleeding. Combining mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis (started 12 hours before surgery) may reduce VTE events in people undergoing bariatric surgery when compared to mechanical prophylaxis alone. No data are available relating to major bleeding. The certainty of the evidence is limited by small sample sizes, few or no events, and risk of bias concerns. Future trials must be sufficiently large to enable analysis of relevant clinical outcomes, and should standardise the time of treatment and follow-up. They should also address the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets, preferably grouping them according to the type of intervention.

COVID-19 in patients with B cell immune deficiency

This article aims to describe the clinical manifestations and management of COVID-19 in patients with primary and secondary B cell deficient states. We describe the epidemiologic and clinical features as well as unique management paradigm including isolation precautions with COVID-19. We then focus upon primary and secondary preventive approaches including vaccination and pre- as well as post-exposure prophylaxis. Further, we elaborate upon the important disease specific risk factors in these patients and the need to conduct prospective clinical trials to develop individualized management strategies in this population.

Understanding COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC) is a life-threatening complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms driving this condition are unclear. Evidence supports the concept that CAC involves complex interactions between the innate immune response, the coagulation and fibrinolytic pathways, and the vascular endothelium, resulting in a procoagulant condition. Understanding of the pathogenesis of this condition at the genomic, molecular and cellular levels is needed in order to mitigate thrombosis formation in at-risk patients. In this Perspective, we categorize our current understanding of CAC into three main pathological mechanisms: first, vascular endothelial cell dysfunction; second, a hyper-inflammatory immune response; and last, hypercoagulability. Furthermore, we pose key questions and identify research gaps that need to be addressed to better understand CAC, facilitate improved diagnostics and aid in therapeutic development. Finally, we consider the suitability of different animal models to study CAC.

Higher Dose Anticoagulation Cannot Prevent Disease Progression in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Implementation of higher dose (HD) thromboprophylaxis has been considered in patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to compare HD to standard dose (SD) thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021284808). We searched for randomised controlled studies (CENTRAL, Embase, Medline and medRxviv) that compared HD to SD anticoagulation in COVID-19 and analysed outcomes such as mortality, thrombotic events, bleedings, and disease progression. The statistical analyses were made using the random effects model. Fourteen articles were included (6253 patients). HD compared with SD showed no difference in mortality (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.54−1.28]). The use of HD was associated with a decreased risk of thrombosis (OR 0.58 [95% CI 0.44−0.76]), although with an increased risk of major bleeding (OR 1.64 [95% CI 1.25−2.16]). The cohort with D-dimer < 1 mg/mL showed no effect (OR 1.19 [95% CI 0.67−2.11]), but in the case of D-dimer > 1 mg/mL, a tendency of lower risk in the HD group was observed (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.31−1.00]). The need for intubation in moderately ill patients showed a nonsignificant lower likelihood in the HD group (OR 0.82 [95% CI 0.63−1.08]). We cannot advocate for HD in all COVID-19 patients, although it shows some nonsignificant benefits on disease progression in those with elevated D-dimer who do not need ICU admission.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet agents may be useful for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when used in addition to best medical practice (BMP), which includes anticoagulation, compression stockings, and clinical care such as physical exercise, skin hydration, etc. Antiplatelet agents could minimise complications such as post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and pulmonary embolism (PE). They may also reduce the recurrence of the disease (recurrent venous thromboembolism (recurrent VTE)). However, antiplatelet agents may increase the likelihood of bleeding events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antiplatelet agents in addition to current BMP compared to current BMP (with or without placebo) for the treatment of DVT.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 7 December 2021. The review authors searched LILACS and IBECS databases (15 December 2021) and also checked the bibliographies of included trials for further references to relevant trials, and contacted specialists in the field, manufacturers and authors of the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining antiplatelet agents compared to BMP following initial standard anticoagulation treatment for DVT. We included studies where antiplatelet agents were given in addition to current BMP compared to current BMP (with or without placebo) for the treatment of DVT (acute: treatment started within 21 days of symptom onset; chronic: treatment started after 21 days of symptom onset). We evaluated only RCTs where the antiplatelet agents were the unique difference between the groups (intervention and control).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the trials. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third review author. We calculated outcome effects using risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies with 1625 eligible participants, with data up to 37.2 months of follow-up. For one preplanned comparison (i.e. antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP plus placebo) for acute DVT we identified no eligible studies for inclusion. In acute DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone was assessed by one study (500 participants), which reported on four outcomes until 6 months of follow-up. There were no deaths and no cases of major bleeding reported. The participants who received antiplatelet agents showed a lower risk of PTS (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91; 1 study, 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The control group presented a lower risk of adverse events compared to the intervention group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.06 to 7.80; 1 study, 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not provide information for recurrent VTE or PE. In chronic DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone was assessed by one study (224 participants). The study authors reported four relevant outcomes, three of which (major bleeding, mortality and adverse events) showed no events during the 3 years of follow-up. Therefore, an effect estimate could only be reported for recurrent VTE, favouring antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34; 1 study, 224 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the outcomes PE and PTS, this study did not present information which could be used for analysis. In chronic DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP plus placebo was assessed by four studies (901 participants). The meta-analysis of this pooled data showed a lower risk of recurrent VTE for the antiplatelet agents group (RR 0.65, 95%, CI 0.43 to 0.96; NNTB = 14; low-certainty evidence). For major bleeding, we found no clear difference between placebo and intervention groups until 37.2 months of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.34; 1 study, 583 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In PE fatal/non-fatal outcome, we found no clear difference with the use of antiplatelet agents (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.14; 1 study, 583 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For all-cause mortality, the overall effect of antiplatelet agents did not differ from the placebo group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.06; 3 studies, 649 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse events outcome did not show a clear difference (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 7.19; 2 studies, 621 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is no assessment of PTS in these studies. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In chronic DVT settings, following the initial standard treatment with anticoagulants, there is low-certainty evidence that antiplatelet agents in addition to BMP may reduce recurrent VTE, (NNTB = 14) when compared to BMP plus placebo. Moderate-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in adverse events, major bleeding and PE when antiplatelet agents are used in addition to BMP compared to BMP plus placebo. In acute and chronic DVT settings, following the initial standard treatment with anticoagulants, we can draw no conclusions for antiplatelet agents in addition to BMP compared to BMP alone due to very low-certainty evidence.  Trials of high methodological quality, that are large and of sufficient duration to detect significant clinical outcomes are needed. Trials should ideally last more than 4 years in order to estimate the long-term effect of antiplatelet agents. Trials should include people with acute and chronic DVT and provide relevant individual data, such as the outcome for each index event (DVT or PE), the use of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, whether the DVT is provoked or unprovoked, and the age of participants.

Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and admitted to hospital.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and national health authority databases. The search was last updated on 16 November 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that evaluated low or intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, or no intervention for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill adult patients in hospital.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Random effects, bayesian network meta-analyses used four co-primary outcomes: all cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and serious adverse events at or closest timing to 90 days. Risk of bias was also assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.

RESULTS

44 randomised controlled trials that randomly assigned 90 095 participants were included in the main analysis. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggested none of the interventions reduced all cause mortality compared with placebo. Pentasaccharides (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible interval 0.08 to 1.07), intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most likely to reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (very low to low quality evidence). Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were most likely to increase major bleeding (low to moderate quality evidence). No conclusive differences were noted between interventions regarding serious adverse events (very low to low quality evidence). When compared with no intervention instead of placebo, all active interventions did more favourably with regard to risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality, and less favourably with regard to risk of major bleeding. The results were robust in prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-molecular-weight heparin in an intermediate dose appears to confer the best balance of benefits and harms for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable profile. A systematic discrepancy was noted in intervention effects that depended on whether placebo or no intervention was the reference treatment. Main limitations of this study include the quality of the evidence, which was generally low to moderate due to imprecision and within-study bias, and statistical inconsistency, which was addressed post hoc.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020173088.

Biological Actions, Implications, and Cautions of Statins Therapy in COVID-19

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed worse prognosis and higher mortality in individuals with obesity. Dyslipidemia is a major link between obesity and COVID-19 severity. Statins as the most common lipid regulating drugs have shown favorable effects in various pathophysiological states. Importantly, accumulating observational studies have suggested that statin use is associated with reduced risk of progressing to severe illness and in-hospital death in COVID-19 patients. Possible explanations underlie these protective impacts include their abilities of reducing cholesterol, suppressing viral entry and replication, anti-inflammation and immunomodulatory effects, as well as anti-thrombosis and anti-oxidative properties. Despite these benefits, statin therapies have side effects that should be considered, such as elevated creatinine kinase, liver enzyme and serum glucose levels, which are already elevated in severe COVID-19. Concerns are also raised whether statins interfere with the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Randomized controlled trials are being conducted worldwide to confirm the values of statin use for COVID-19 treatment. Generally, the results suggest no necessity to discontinue statin use, and no evidence suggesting interference between statins and COVID-19 vaccines. However, concomitant administration of statins and COVID-19 antiviral drug Paxlovid may increase statin exposure and the risk of adverse effects, because most statins are metabolized mainly through CYP3A4 which is potently inhibited by ritonavir, a major component of Paxlovid. Therefore, more clinical/preclinical studies are still warranted to understand the benefits, harms and mechanisms of statin use in the context of COVID-19.

Effect of heparin treatment on pulmonary embolism and in-hospital death in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt deep vein thrombosis

Background

Pulmonary embolism (PE) without overt deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was common in hospitalized coronavirus-induced disease (COVID)-19 patients and represented a diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic challenge. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic role of PE on mortality and the preventive effect of heparin on PE and mortality in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients without overt DVT.

Methods

Data from 401 unvaccinated patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 33% females) consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit or the medical ward were included in a retrospective longitudinal study. PE was documented by computed tomography scan and DVT by compressive venous ultrasound. The effect of PE diagnosis and any heparin use on in-hospital death (primary outcome) was analyzed by a classical survival model. The preventive effect of heparin on either PE diagnosis or in-hospital death (secondary outcome) was analyzed by a multi-state model after having reclassified patients who started heparin after PE diagnosis as not treated.

Results

Median follow-up time was 8 days (range 1–40 days). PE cumulative incidence and in-hospital mortality were 27% and 20%, respectively. PE was predicted by increased D-dimer levels and COVID-19 severity. Independent predictors of in-hospital death were age (hazards ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–1.08, p < 0.001), body mass index (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89–0.98, p = 0.004), COVID-19 severity (severe versus mild/moderate HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.30–10.4, p = 0.014, critical versus mild/moderate HR 12.1, 95% CI 4.57–32.2, p < 0.001), active neoplasia (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.48–4.50, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.15–5.27, p = 0.020), respiratory rate (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.11, p = 0.008), heart rate (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.04, p < 0.001), and any heparin treatment (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18–0.67, p = 0.001). In the multi-state model, preventive heparin at prophylactic or intermediate/therapeutic dose, compared with no treatment, reduced PE risk and in-hospital death, but it did not influence mortality of patients with a PE diagnosis.

Conclusions

PE was common during the first waves pandemic in unvaccinated patients, but it was not a negative prognostic factor for in-hospital death. Heparin treatment at any dose prevented mortality independently of PE diagnosis, D-dimer levels, and disease severity.

Effect of intermediate/high versus low dose heparin on the thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

Background

The optimal prophylactic dose of heparin in patients with coronavirus-associated disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED) is debated. This study aimed to analyze different thromboprophylaxis approaches in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted to ED without initial venous thromboembolism.

Methods

Retrospectively, the effect of intermediate/high versus low dose heparin treatment was evaluated from December 2020 to July 2021 in a tertiary Academic Hospital in northeast Italy. The primary outcome comprised arterial or venous thromboembolism or all-cause death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes comprised each single primary outcome component or major hemorrhagic event. Cox regression was used to determine predictors of the primary outcome and propensity score weights to balance the effect of heparin treatment on all outcomes.

Results

Data of 144 consecutive patients (age 70 ± 13, 33% females) were included in the study. High-dose prophylactic heparin was used in 69%, intermediate in 15%, and low in 17% of patients. The primary outcome occurred in 48 patients. Independent predictors of the primary outcome were COVID-19 severity (hazards ratio (HR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–3.65, p = 0.035) and D-dimer levels (HR each log ng/dl 1.38, 95% CI 1.04–1.84, p = 0.026). Intermediate/high dose heparin did not affect the risk of the primary outcome compared with the low dose (weighted HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.75–2.56, p = 0.292). Intermediate/high heparin increased the risk of major hemorrhagic events (weighted HR 5.92, 95% CI 1.09–32, p = 0.039).

Conclusions

In unvaccinated COVID-19 patients admitted to ED, prophylaxis with heparin at the intermediate/high dose did not reduce primary outcome compared with the low dose but increased the risk of major hemorrhagic events.

Platelets in COVID-19 disease: friend, foe, or both?

Immuno-thrombosis of COVID-19 results in the activation of platelets and coagulopathy. Antiplatelet therapy has been widely used in COVID-19 patients to prevent thrombotic events. However, recent analysis of clinical trials does not support the major effects of antiplatelet therapy on mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, despite the indisputable evidence for an increased risk of thrombotic complications in COVID-19 disease. This apparent paradox calls for an explanation. Platelets have an important role in sensing and orchestrating host response to infection, and several platelet functions related to host defense response not directly related to their well-known hemostatic function are emerging. In this paper, we aim to review the evidence supporting the notion that platelets have protective properties in maintaining endothelial barrier integrity in the course of an inflammatory response, and this role seems to be of particular importance in the lung. It might, thus, well be that the inhibition of platelet function, if affecting the protective aspect of platelet activity, might diminish clinical benefits resulting from the inhibition of the pro-thrombotic phenotype of platelets in immuno-thrombosis of COVID-19. A better understanding of the platelet-dependent mechanisms involved in the preservation of the endothelial barrier is necessary to design the antiplatelet therapeutic strategies that inhibit the pro-thrombotic activity of platelets without effects on the vaso-protective function of platelets safeguarding the pulmonary endothelial barrier during multicellular host defense in pulmonary circulation.