Emergence of institutional antithrombotic protocols for coronavirus 2019

Universal clinical decision support tool for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: post hoc analysis of the IMPROVE-DD cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Inpatient and extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis of COVID-19 patients remains suboptimal despite antithrombotic guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a novel electronic health record-agnostic clinical decision support (CDS) tool incorporating the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism plus D-dimer (IMPROVE-DD) venous thromboembolism (VTE) scores increases appropriate inpatient and extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis and improves outcomes in COVID-19 inpatients.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of the IMPROVE-DD cluster randomized trial evaluated thromboprophylaxis CDS among COVID-19 inpatients at 4 New York hospitals between December 21, 2020, and January 21, 2022. Hospitals were randomized 1:1 to CDS (intervention, n = 2) vs no CDS (usual care, n = 2). The primary outcome was rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included rates of major thromboembolism, all-cause and VTE-related readmissions and death, major bleeding (MB), and all-cause mortality 30 days after discharge.

RESULTS

Two thousand four hundred fifty-two COVID-19 inpatients were analyzed (CDS, 1355; no CDS, 1097). Mean age was 73.7 ± 9.37 years; 50.1% of participants were male. CDS adoption was 96.8% (intervention group). CDS was associated with increased appropriate at-discharge extended thromboprophylaxis (42.6% vs 28.8%; odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.39-2.41; P < .001). CDS was associated with reduced VTE (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.75; P < .001), arterial thromboembolism (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.81; P = .01), total thromboembolism (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.69; P < .001), and 30-day all-cause readmission/death (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99; P = .04). There were no differences in MB, VTE-related readmissions/death, or all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Electronic health record-agnostic CDS incorporating IMPROVE-DD VTE scores had high adoption, was associated with increased appropriate at-discharge extended thromboprophylaxis, and reduced thromboembolism and all-cause readmission/death without increasing MB in COVID-19 inpatients.

Diagnosis and treatment of coagulopathy using thromboelastography with platelet mapping is associated with decreased risk of pulmonary failure in COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients may require antithrombotic and/or anti-inflammatory medications. We hypothesized that individualized anticoagulant (AC) management, based on diagnosis of coagulopathy using thromboelastography with platelet mapping (TEG-PM), would decrease the frequency of pulmonary failure (PF) requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), mitigate thrombotic and hemorrhagic events, and, in-turn, reduce mortality.

METHODS

Hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients, age 18 or older, with escalating oxygen requirements were included. Prospective and supplemental retrospective chart reviews were conducted during a 2-month period. Patients were stratified into two groups based on clinician-administered AC treatment: TEG-PM guided vs. non-TEG guided.

RESULTS

Highly-elevated inflammatory markers (D-dimer, C-reactive protein, ferritin) were associated with poor prognosis but did not distinguish coagulopathic from noncoagulopathic patients. TEG-guided AC treatment was used in 145 patients vs. 227 treated without TEG-PM guidance. When managed by TEG-PM, patients had decreased frequency of PF requiring MV (45/145 [31%] vs. 152/227 [66.9%], P  < 0.0001), fewer thrombotic events (2[1.4%] vs. 39[17.2%], P  = 0.0019) and fewer hemorrhagic events (6[4.1%] vs. 24[10.7%], P  = 0.0240), and had markedly reduced mortality (43[29.7%] vs. 142[62.6%], P  < 0.0001). Platelet hyperactivity, indicating the need for antiplatelet medications, was identified in 75% of TEG-PM patients. When adjusted for confounders, empiric, indiscriminate AC treatment (not guided by TEG-PM) was shown to be an associated risk factor for PF requiring MV, while TEG-PM guided management was associated with a protective effect (odds ratio = 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Following COVID-19 diagnosis, AC therapies based on diagnosis of coagulopathy using TEG-PM were associated with significantly less respiratory decompensation, fewer thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications, and improved likelihood of survival.

Anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19: A narrative review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), can manifest itself in several ways, including coagulopathy and thrombosis. These complications can be the first and sometimes only manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can occur early or late in the course of the disease. However, these symptoms are more prevalent in hospitalized patients with venous thromboembolism, particularly those admitted to intensive care units. Moreover, various forms of arterial and venous thrombosis, or micro- or macro-vasculature embolisms, have been reported during the current pandemic. They have led to harmful consequences, such as neurological and cardiac events, nearly all resulting from the hypercoagulable state caused by this viral infection. The severe hypercoagulability observed in patients with COVID-19 accounts for most cases of the disease that become critical. Therefore, anticoagulants seem to be one of the most vital therapeutics for treating this potentially life-threatening condition. In the current paper, we present a thorough review of the pathophysiology of COVID-19-induced hypercoagulable state and the use of anticoagulants to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections in different patient groups, as well as their pros and cons.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients with Severe COVID-19 and the Association between the Dose of Anticoagulants and Outcomes

Introduction

COVID-19 is characterized by a procoagulant state that increases the risk of venous and arterial thrombosis. The dose of anticoagulants in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia without suspected or confirmed thrombosis has been debated.

Aim of the study

We evaluated the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill COVID-19 patients and assessed the association between the dose of anticoagulants and outcomes.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort included patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU between March and July 2020. Patients with clinically suspected and confirmed VTE were compared to those not diagnosed to have VTE.

Results

The study enrolled 310 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: age 60.0±15.1 years, 67.1% required mechanical ventilation and 44.7% vasopressors. Most (97.1%) patients received anticoagulants during ICU stay: prophylactic unfractionated heparin (N=106), standard-dose enoxaparin (N=104) and intermediate-dose enoxaparin (N=57). Limb Doppler ultrasound was performed for 49 (15.8%) patients and chest computed tomographic angiography for 62 (20%). VTE was diagnosed in 41 (13.2%) patients; 20 patients had deep vein thrombosis and 23 had acute pulmonary embolism. Patients with VTE had significantly higher D-dimer on ICU admission. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, intermediate-dose enoxaparin versus standard-dose unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin was associated with lower VTE risk (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.74) and lower risk of the composite outcome of VTE or hospital mortality (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.78; p=0.006). Major bleeding was not different between the intermediate- and prophylactic-dose heparin groups.

Conclusions

In our study, clinically suspected and confirmed VTE was diagnosed in 13.2% of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Intermediate-dose enoxaparin versus standard-dose unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin was associated with decreased risk of VTE or hospital mortality.

Good practice statements for antithrombotic therapy in the management of COVID-19: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Despite the emergence of high quality randomized trial data with the use of antithrombotic agents to reduce the risk of thromboembolism, end-organ failure, and possibly mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), questions still remain as to optimal patient selection for these strategies, the use of antithrombotics in outpatient settings and in-hospital settings (including critical care units), thromboprophylaxis in special patient populations, and the management of acute thrombosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In October 2021, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) formed a multidisciplinary and international panel of content experts, two patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on treatment with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for COVID-19 patients. The ISTH Guideline panel discussed additional topics to be well suited to a non-Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for Good Practice Statements (GPS) to support good clinical care in the antithrombotic management of COVID-19 patients in various clinical settings. The GPS panel agreed on 17 GPS: 3 in the outpatient (pre-hospital) setting, 12 in the hospital setting both in non-critical care (ward) as well as intensive care unit settings, and 2 in the immediate post-hospital discharge setting based on limited evidence or expert opinion that supports net clinical benefit in enacting the statements provided. The antithrombotic therapies discussed in these GPS should be available in low- and middle-income countries.

Extended post-discharge thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients, particularly those with high risk features, are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolic events for approximately 30 days or more after hospital discharge. Extended post-hospital discharge thromboprophylaxis has potential to reduce this risk.

AREAS COVERED

Recent cohort, registry, and randomized trial data on the topic of extended post-discharge thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 inpatients are reviewed, and key patient subgroups at high thrombotic risk are highlighted, with antithrombotic guidelines on the topic discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

COVID-19 inpatients with cardiovascular risk factors, advanced age, intensive care unit stay, or an IMPROVE VTE score of 4 or more or a score of 2 or 3 plus elevated D-dimers (> twice the upper limit of normal) or an IMPROVE-DD VTE score of ≥ 4 are at high thrombotic risk in the post-discharge period. These high risk patient subgroups benefit from extended post-discharge thromboprophylaxis, specifically with rivaroxaban 10mg daily for 35 days. Recent NIH and ISTH guidelines recommend or suggest this approach. Results from other clinical trials are pending.

Immuno-Thrombotic Complications of COVID-19: Implications for Timing of Surgery and Anticoagulation

Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, global governing bodies prioritized transmissibility-based precautions and hospital capacity as the foundation for delay of elective procedures. As elective surgical volumes increased, convalescent COVID-19 patients faced increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and clinicians had limited evidence for stratifying individual risk in this population. Clear evidence now demonstrates that those recovering from COVID-19 have increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. These data-in conjunction with the recent American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines-offer the evidence necessary to expand the early pandemic guidelines and guide the surgeon's preoperative risk assessment. Here, we argue elective surgeries should still be delayed on a personalized basis to maximize postoperative outcomes. We outline a framework for stratifying the individual COVID-19 patient's fitness for surgery based on the symptoms and severity of acute or convalescent COVID-19 illness, coagulopathy assessment, and acuity of the surgical procedure. Although the most common manifestation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is COVID-19 pneumonitis, every system in the body is potentially afflicted by an endotheliitis. This endothelial derangement most often manifests as a hypercoagulable state on admission with associated occult and symptomatic venous and arterial thromboembolisms. The delicate balance between hyper and hypocoagulable states is defined by the local immune-thrombotic crosstalk that results commonly in a hemostatic derangement known as fibrinolytic shutdown. In tandem, the hemostatic derangements that occur during acute COVID-19 infection affect not only the timing of surgical procedures, but also the incidence of postoperative hemostatic complications related to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC). Traditional methods of thromboprophylaxis and treatment of thromboses after surgery require a tailored approach guided by an understanding of the pathophysiologic underpinnings of the COVID-19 patient. Likewise, a prolonged period of risk for developing hemostatic complications following hospitalization due to COVID-19 has resulted in guidelines from differing societies that recommend varying periods of delay following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In conclusion, we propose the perioperative, personalized assessment of COVID-19 patients' CAC using viscoelastic hemostatic assays and fluorescent microclot analysis.

Low versus high dose anticoagulation in patients with Coronavirus 2019 pneumonia at the time of admission to critical care units: A multicenter retrospective cohort study in the Beaumont healthcare system

PURPOSE

Coagulopathy is common in patients with COVID-19. The ideal approach to anticoagulation remains under debate. There is a significant variability in existing protocols for anticoagulation, and these are mostly based on sporadic reports, small studies, and expert opinion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluated the association between anticoagulation dose and inpatient mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) or step-down units (SDUs) of eight Beaumont Healthcare hospitals in Michigan, USA from March 10th to April 15th, 2020.

RESULTS

Included were 578 patients with a median age of 64 years; among whom, 57.8% were males. Most patients (n = 447, 77.3%) received high dose and one in four (n = 131, 22.7%) received low dose anticoagulation. Overall mortality rate was 41.9% (n = 242). After adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, race, BMI, ferritin level at hospital admission, intubation, comorbidities, mSOFA, and Padua score), administration of high anticoagulation doses at the time of ICU/SDU admission was associated with decreased inpatient mortality (OR 0.564, 95% CI 0.333-0.953, p = 0.032) compared to low dose.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with high dose anticoagulation at the time of ICU/SDU admission was associated with decreased adjusted mortality among critically ill adult patients with COVID-19.

The Outcome of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in COVID-19-Associated Deep Vein Thrombosis

IntroductionPublished evidence of venous thrombotic complications of COVID-19 is lacking from India. This case series consists of twenty-nine adult patients who were COVID -19 positive and treated for Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, in India. The study was aimed at analyzing patient demographics of patients with DVT and the outcome of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (CDT) in COVID positive patients. Material and Methods: Patients who developed DVT while or after being COVID positive were managed between February and April 2021 at the institution of the first two authors and were included in this retrospective study. Demographic, clinical data, laboratory data, and treatment given were analyzed. All patients were followed up for 3 months with a Villalta score. Results: There were a total of 29 patients (12 male and 17 female) included in the study with a mean age of 47 ± 17 years. The average time of presentation from being COVID positive was 17.8 ± 3.6 days and one patient developed DVT after becoming Covid negative. All but one patient had lower limb involvement, with 42.8% having proximal and 57.2% distal DVT. All patients with Iliofemoral and two with Femoropopliteal DVT were treated with catheter-di thrombolysis and the other 15 patients were managed with anticoagulation alone. No re-thrombosis was observed in the thrombolysis group. Overall average Villalta score at 3 months was 10.7 ± 2.1 with a score of 10.58 ± 2.1 in the anticoagulation-only group and 10.85 ± 2.3 in the CDT group. Conclusion: COVID-19 seems to be an additional risk factor in the development of DVT. The outcome of such patients, treated by thrombolysis appears to be similar to non-COVID patients. In this, observational experience of the authors suggests that CDT could be offered to COVID positive patients with symptomatic Iliofemoral DVT with good outcomes and an acceptable post-intervention Villalta score.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin vs Standard Prophylactic or Intermediate-Dose Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in High-risk Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: The HEP-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data.

RESULTS

Of 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.

Outpatient and inpatient anticoagulation therapy and the risk for hospital admission and death among COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a hypercoagulable state. Limited data exist informing the relationship between anticoagulation therapy and risk for COVID-19 related hospitalization and mortality.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients over the age of 18 diagnosed with COVID-19 in a prospective cohort study from March 4th to August 27th, 2020 among 12 hospitals and 60 clinics of M Health Fairview system (USA). We investigated the relationship between (1) 90-day anticoagulation therapy among outpatients before COVID-19 diagnosis and the risk for hospitalization and mortality and (2) Inpatient anticoagulation therapy and mortality risk.

FINDINGS

Of 6195 patients, 598 were immediately hospitalized and 5597 were treated as outpatients. The overall case-fatality rate was 2•8% (n = 175 deaths). Among the patients who were hospitalized, the inpatient mortality was 13%. Among the 5597 COVID-19 patients initially treated as outpatients, 160 (2.9%) were on anticoagulation and 331 were eventually hospitalized (5.9%). In a multivariable analysis, outpatient anticoagulation use was associated with a 43% reduction in risk for hospital admission, HR (95% CI = 0.57, 0.38-0.86), p = 0.007, but was not associated with mortality, HR (95% CI=0.88, 0.50 - 1.52), p = 0.64. Inpatients who were not on anticoagulation (before or after hospitalization) had an increased risk for mortality, HR (95% CI = 2.26, 1.17-4.37), p = 0.015.

INTERPRETATION

Outpatients with COVID-19 who were on outpatient anticoagulation at the time of diagnosis experienced a 43% reduced risk of hospitalization. Failure to initiate anticoagulation upon hospitalization or maintaining outpatient anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients was associated with increased mortality risk.

FUNDING

No funding was obtained for this study.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Need for an Integrated and Equitable Approach: An International Expert Consensus Paper

BACKGROUND

 One year after the declaration of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) and despite the implementation of mandatory physical barriers and social distancing, humanity remains challenged by a long-lasting and devastating public health crisis.

MANAGEMENT

 Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are efficient mitigation strategies. The success of these NPIs is dependent on the approval and commitment of the population. The launch of a mass vaccination program in many countries in late December 2020 with mRNA vaccines, adenovirus-based vaccines, and inactivated virus vaccines has generated hope for the end of the pandemic.

CURRENT ISSUES

 The continuous appearance of new pathogenic viral strains and the ability of vaccines to prevent infection and transmission raise important concerns as we try to achieve community immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants. The need of a second and even third generation of vaccines has already been acknowledged by the WHO and governments.

PERSPECTIVES

 There is a critical and urgent need for a balanced and integrated strategy for the management of the COVID-19 outbreaks organized on three axes: (1) Prevention of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, (2) Detection and early diagnosis of patients at risk of disease worsening, and (3) Anticipation of medical care (PDA).

CONCLUSION

 The "PDA strategy" integrated into state policy for the support and expansion of health systems and introduction of digital organizations (i.e., telemedicine, e-Health, artificial intelligence, and machine-learning technology) is of major importance for the preservation of citizens' health and life world-wide.

Postdischarge thromboembolic outcomes and mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: the CORE-19 registry

In our registry, 90-day postdischarge VTE, ATE, and ACM rates were 1.55%, 1.71%, and 4.83%, respectively.

Discharge anticoagulants, mostly prophylactic doses, were associated with 46% decrease in major thromboembolism or ACM composite end point.

Thromboembolic events, including venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and mortality from subclinical thrombotic events occur frequently in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) inpatients. Whether the risk extends postdischarge has been controversial. Our prospective registry included consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized within our multihospital system from 1 March to 31 May 2020. We captured demographics, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, medications, postdischarge thromboprophylaxis, and 90-day outcomes. Data from electronic health records, health informatics exchange, radiology database, and telephonic follow-up were merged. Primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated VTE, ATE, and all-cause mortality (ACM). Principal safety outcome was major bleeding (MB). Among 4906 patients (53.7% male), mean age was 61.7 years. Comorbidities included hypertension (38.6%), diabetes (25.1%), obesity (18.9%), and cancer history (13.1%). Postdischarge thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 13.2%. VTE rate was 1.55%; ATE, 1.71%; ΑCM, 4.83%; and MB, 1.73%. Composite primary outcome rate was 7.13% and significantly associated with advanced age (odds ratio [OR], 3.66; 95% CI, 2.84-4.71), prior VTE (OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.00-4.47), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.78-2.93), chronic kidney disease (CKD; OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.47-3.0), peripheral arterial disease (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.10-3.80), carotid occlusive disease (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.30-3.14), IMPROVE-DD VTE score ≥4 (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14), and coronary artery disease (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.17). Postdischarge anticoagulation was significantly associated with reduction in primary outcome (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.81). Postdischarge VTE, ATE, and ACM occurred frequently after COVID-19 hospitalization. Advanced age, cardiovascular risk factors, CKD, IMPROVE-DD VTE score ≥4, and ICU stay increased risk. Postdischarge anticoagulation reduced risk by 46%.

Pulmonary Embolism Prophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: An Emerging Issue

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 virus disease (coronavirus disease 2019; COVID-19) is associated with increased coagulation activity, resulting in an excessive risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and poor prognosis. The most common manifestation of VTE is pulmonary embolism (PE), with approximately one in five hospitalised patients being at risk. These reports led to the empirical use of prophylactic anticoagulation, even in the absence of established or clinically suspected disease. This review summarises current aspects and recommendations regarding the use of thromboprophylaxis for PE in patients with COVID-19.

Safety profile of enhanced thromboprophylaxis strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: observational report from 28 European intensive care units

INTRODUCTION

Critical illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is associated with a high burden of pulmonary embolism (PE) and thromboembolic events despite standard thromboprophylaxis. Available guidance is discordant, ranging from standard care to the use of therapeutic anticoagulation for enhanced thromboprophylaxis (ET). Local ET protocols have been empirically determined and are generally intermediate between standard prophylaxis and full anticoagulation. Concerns have been raised in regard to the potential risk of haemorrhage associated with therapeutic anticoagulation. This report describes the prevalence and safety of ET strategies in European Intensive Care Unit (ICUs) and their association with outcomes during the first wave of the COVID pandemic, with particular focus on haemorrhagic complications and ICU mortality.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational, multi-centre study including adult critically ill COVID-19 patients. Anonymised data included demographics, clinical characteristics, thromboprophylaxis and/or anticoagulation treatment. Critical haemorrhage was defined as intracranial haemorrhage or bleeding requiring red blood cells transfusion. Survival was collected at ICU discharge. A multivariable mixed effects generalised linear model analysis matched for the propensity for receiving ET was constructed for both ICU mortality and critical haemorrhage.

RESULTS

A total of 852 (79% male, age 66 [37-85] years) patients were included from 28 ICUs. Median body mass index and ICU length of stay were 27.7 (25.1-30.7) Kg/m2 and 13 (7-22) days, respectively. Thromboembolic events were reported in 146 patients (17.1%), of those 78 (9.2%) were PE. ICU mortality occurred in 335/852 (39.3%) patients. ET was used in 274 (32.1%) patients, and it was independently associated with significant reduction in ICU mortality (log odds = 0.64 [95% CIs 0.18-1.1; p = 0.0069]) but not an increased risk of critical haemorrhage (log odds = 0.187 [95%CI - 0.591 to - 0.964; p = 0.64]).

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of critically ill patients with a high prevalence of thromboembolic events, ET was associated with reduced ICU mortality without an increased burden of haemorrhagic complications. This study suggests ET strategies are safe and associated with favourable outcomes. Whilst full anticoagulation has been questioned for prophylaxis in these patients, our results suggest that there may nevertheless be a role for enhanced / intermediate levels of prophylaxis. Clinical trials investigating causal relationship between intermediate thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes are urgently needed.

Heparin dosage, level, and resistance in SARS-CoV2 infected patients in intensive care unit

Introduction

Patients with COVID‐19 frequently exhibit a hypercoagulable state with high thrombotic risk, particularly those admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Thromboprophylaxis is mandatory in these patients; nevertheless, thrombosis still occurs in many cases. Thus, the problem of assessing an adequate level of anticoagulation in ICU patients becomes evident during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the heparin resistance and the efficacy of heparin monitoring using an anti‐Xa activity assay.

Methods

Thirty‐seven heparin‐treated patients admitted to ICU for SARS‐CoV‐2 pneumonia were retrospectively studied for antifactor Xa activity (anti‐Xa), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), Antithrombin, Fibrinogen, D‐Dimer, Factor VIII, von Willebrand Factor, and the total daily amount of heparin administered. The correlation between APTT and anti‐Xa was evaluated for unfractionated heparins (UFH). The correlations between the daily dose of UFH or the dosage expressed as IU/kg b.w. for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and anti‐Xa were also evaluated.

Results

Twenty‐one patients received calcium heparin, 8 sodium heparin, and 8 LMWH. A moderate correlation was found between APTT and anti‐Xa for UFH. APTT did not correlate with coagulation parameters. 62% of UFH and 75% of LMWH treated patients were under the therapeutic range. About 75% of patients could be considered resistant to heparin.

Conclusions

SARS‐COV2 pneumonia patients in ICU have frequently heparin resistance. Anti‐Xa seems a more reliable method to monitor heparin treatment than APTT in acute patients, also because the assay is insensitive to the increased levels of fibrinogen, FVIII, and LAC that are common during the COVID‐19 inflammatory state.

Treatment-Dose LMWH versus Prophylactic/Intermediate Dose Heparins in High-Risk COVID-19 Inpatients: Rationale and Design of the HEP-COVID Trial

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with significant risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and mortality particularly among hospitalized patients with critical illness and elevated D-dimer (Dd) levels. Conflicting data have yet to elucidate optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing. HEP-COVID (NCT04401293) is a phase 3, multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, randomized, pseudo-blinded, active control trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus prophylactic-/intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for prevention of a primary efficacy composite outcome of VTE, ATE, and all-cause mortality 30 ± 2 days post-enrollment. Eligible patients have COVID-19 diagnosis by nasal swab or serologic testing, requirement for supplemental oxygen per investigator judgment, and Dd >4 × upper limit of normal (ULN) or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score ≥4. Subjects are randomized to enoxaparin 1 mg/kg subcutaneous (SQ)/two times a day (BID) (creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥ 30 mL/min) or 0.5 mg/kg (CrCl 15-30 mL/min) versus local institutional prophylactic regimens including (1) UFH up to 22,500 IU (international unit) daily (divided BID or three times a day), (2) enoxaparin 30 and 40 mg SQ QD (once daily) or BID, or (3) dalteparin 2,500 IU or 5,000 IU QD. The principal safety outcome is major bleeding. Events are adjudicated locally. Based on expected 40% relative risk reduction with treatment-dose compared with prophylactic-dose prophylaxis, 308 subjects will be enrolled (assuming 20% drop-out) to achieve 80% power. Distinguishing design features include an enriched population for the composite endpoint anchored on Dd >4 × ULN, stratification by intensive care unit (ICU) versus non-ICU, and the ability to capture asymptomatic proximal deep venous thrombosis via screening ultrasonography prior to discharge.

Prognostic Value of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Models in Patients with Severe COVID-19

Introduction  Severe novel corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes dysregulation of the coagulation system with arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE). We hypothesize that validated VTE risk scores would have prognostic ability in this population. Methods  Retrospective observational cohort with severe COVID-19 performed in NorthShore University Health System. Patients were >18 years of age and met criteria for inpatient or intensive care unit (ICU) care. The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) and Caprini scores were calculated and patients were stratified. Results  This study includes 184 patients, mostly men (63.6%), Caucasian (54.3%), 63 years old (interquartile range [IQR]: 24-101), and 57.1% of them required ICU care. Twenty-seven (14.7%) thrombotic events occurred: 12 (6.5%) cases of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), 9 (4.9%) of pulmonary embolism, 5 (2.7%) of deep vein thrombosis, and 1 (0.5%) stroke. Among them, 86 patients (46.7%) died, 95 (51.6%) were discharged, and 3 (1.6%) were still hospitalized. "Moderate risk for VTE" and "High risk for VTE" by IMPROVE score had significant mortality association: (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.93-11.03; p  < 0.001) and (HR = 6.22; 95% CI: 3.04-12.71; p  < 0.001), respectively, with 87% sensitivity and 63% specificity (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.752, p  < 0.001). "High Risk for VTE" by Caprini score had significant mortality association (HR = 17.6; 95% CI: 5.56-55.96; p  < 0.001) with 96% sensitivity and 55% specificity (AUC = 0.843, p  < 0.001). Both scores were associated with thrombotic events when classified as "High risk for VTE" by IMPROVE (HR = 6.50; 95% CI: 2.72-15.53; p  < 0.001) and Caprini scores (HR = 11.507; 95% CI: 2.697-49.104; p  = 0.001). Conclusion  The IMPROVE and Caprini risk scores were independent predictors of mortality and thrombotic events in severe COVID-19. With larger validation, this can be useful prognostic information.

Impact of a clinical pharmacist on ultrasound-guided venous thromboembolism screening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a pilot prospective study

Background

The recognition, prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a major challenge in the face of the recent COVID-19 pandemic which has been associated with significant cardiovascular, renal, respiratory and hematologic complications related to hypercoagulability. There has been little literature thus far on the utility of screening ultrasound and the role of the clinical pharmacist in treating these patients.

Methods

We present a prospective pilot program of thirty-one consecutive COVID-19 patients who were provided four extremity screening ultrasounds for VTE on admission. This was coordinated by a clinical pharmacist as part of a multidisciplinary approach. Quantitative and qualitative data were recorded with the goal of describing the utility of the clinical pharmacist in ultrasound screening. Data collected include demographics, information on clinical symptoms or signs at presentation, and laboratory and radiologic results during the hospitalization from each individual electronic medical record.

Results

Nine of the thirty-one patients presented with VTE. Of the nine patients, there were twenty-two total clotted vessels, all of which were asymptomatic. The clinical pharmacist, as the coordinator for a multidisciplinary COVID-19 associated coagulopathy management team, drafted a screening and treatment protocol for anticoagulation prophylaxis and therapy of VTE after ultrasound findings.

Conclusion

VTE screening of hospitalized COVID-19 patients reveals a significant number of asymptomatic VTEs and justifies diagnostic, prophylactic, and treatment measures coordinated by a clinical pharmacist.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Modulator of Pulmonary Embolism Paradigm

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening complication arising from venous thromboembolism with a difficult diagnosis and treatment and is often associated with increased mortality and morbidity. PE had a significantly low incidence prior to the COVID-19 epidemic. This condition saw a sharp surge during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating an evident viral influence on PE's pathophysiology in COVID-19 patients. The hypercoagulable state induced by the viral load seems to be the major contributor, and the classical causative factors seem to play a lesser role. PE in COVID-19 infection has become a mammoth challenge since the diagnosis is quite challenging due to overlapping symptoms, lack of prior-known predisposing risk factors, limited resources, and viral transmittance risk. Numerous factors arising out of the viral load or treatment lead to an increased risk for PE in COVID-19 patients, besides the fact that certain unknown risk factors may also contribute to the incidence of PE in COVID-19 patients. The management of PE in COVID-19 infection mainly comprises thromboprophylaxis and anticoagulant therapy with mechanical ventilation, depending on the risk stratification of the patient, with a post-COVID-19 management that prevents recurrent PE and complications. This review aims to discuss various aspects of COVID-19-infection-associated PE and major differential aspects from non-COVID-19 PE.

SARS-COV-2-associated coagulopathy and thromboembolism prophylaxis in children: A single-center observational study

BACKGROUND

Multiple investigators have described an increased incidence of thromboembolic events in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Data concerning hemostatic complications in children hospitalized for COVID-19/multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) are scant.

OBJECTIVES

To share our experience in managing SARS-CoV-2-associated pro-coagulant state in hospitalized children.

METHODS

D-dimer values were recorded at diagnosis in children hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2-related manifestations. In moderately to critically ill patients and MIS-C cases, coagulation and inflammatory markers were checked at multiple time points and median results were compared. Pro-thrombotic risk factors were appraised for each child and thromboprophylaxis was started in selected cases.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were prospectively enrolled. D-dimer values did not discriminate COVID-19 of differing severity, whereas were markedly different between the COVID-19 and the MIS-C cohorts. In both cohorts, D-dimer and C-reactive protein levels increased upon clinical worsening but were not accompanied by decreased fibrinogen or platelet values, with all parameters returning to normal upon disease resolution. Six patients had multiple thrombotic risk factors and were started on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. No deaths or thrombotic or bleeding complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 pediatric patients show mildly altered coagulation and inflammatory parameters; on the other hand, MIS-C cases showed laboratory signs of an inflammatory driven pro-coagulant status. Universal anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalized children with SARS-CoV-2-related manifestations is not warranted, but may be offered to patients with other pro-thrombotic risk factors in the context of a multi-modal therapeutic approach.

Prevalence and Predictors of Venous Thromboembolism or Mortality in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND

 We aimed to identify the prevalence and predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or mortality in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

METHODS

 A retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adult patients admitted to an integrated health care network in the New York metropolitan region between March 1, 2020 and April 27, 2020. The final analysis included 9,407 patients with an overall VTE rate of 2.9% (2.4% in the medical ward and 4.9% in the intensive care unit [ICU]) and a VTE or mortality rate of 26.1%. Most patients received prophylactic-dose thromboprophylaxis. Multivariable analysis showed significantly reduced VTE or mortality with Black race, history of hypertension, angiotensin converting enzyme/angiotensin receptor blocker use, and initial prophylactic anticoagulation. It also showed significantly increased VTE or mortality with age 60 years or greater, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 3 or greater, patients on Medicare, history of heart failure, history of cerebrovascular disease, body mass index greater than 35, steroid use, antirheumatologic medication use, hydroxychloroquine use, maximum D-dimer four times or greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN), ICU level of care, increasing creatinine, and decreasing platelet counts.

CONCLUSION

 In our large cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the overall in-hospital VTE rate was 2.9% (4.9% in the ICU) and a VTE or mortality rate of 26.1%. Key predictors of VTE or mortality included advanced age, increasing CCI, history of cardiovascular disease, ICU level of care, and elevated maximum D-dimer with a cutoff at least four times the ULN. Use of prophylactic-dose anticoagulation but not treatment-dose anticoagulation was associated with reduced VTE or mortality.

Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis and Thrombosis in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases thrombosis in hospitalized patients prompting adoption of different thromboprophylaxis strategies. Safety and efficacy of escalated-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis are not established.

OBJECTIVES

 To determine the pooled incidence of thrombosis/bleeding in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 for standard-dose, intermediate-dose, therapeutic anticoagulation, and no pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

 MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to August 29, 2020 for studies reporting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and thrombosis or bleeding. Pooled event rates were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

 Thirty-five observational studies were included. The pooled incidence rates of total venous thromboembolism (N = 4,685) were: no prophylaxis 41.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.1-57.2, I 2 = 76%), standard-dose prophylaxis 19.8% (95% CI: 13.2-28.6, I 2 = 95%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 11.9% (95% CI: 4.3-28.6, I 2 = 91%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 10.5% (95% CI: 4.2-23.8, I 2 = 82%, p = 0.003). The pooled incidence rates of arterial thrombosis (N = 1,464) were: no prophylaxis 11.3% (95% CI: 5.2-23.0, I 2 = 0%), standard-dose prophylaxis 2.5% (95% CI: 1.4-4.3, I 2 = 45%), intermediate-dose prophylaxis 2.1% (95% CI: 0.5-7.7, I 2 = 45%), and therapeutic-dose anticoagulants 1.3% (95% CI: 0.2-8.8, I 2 = 0, p = 0.009). The pooled bleeding event rates (N = 6,393) were nonsignificantly higher in therapeutic-dose anticoagulants compared with standard-dose prophylaxis, (6.3 vs. 1.7%, p = 0.083).

CONCLUSION

 Thrombosis rates were lower in hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Thrombosis and bleeding rates for patients receiving intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis or therapeutic anticoagulation were similar to those who received standard-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

Cerebral Venous Sinus Thromboses in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Three Cases and a Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Early studies suggest that acute cerebrovascular events may be common in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may be associated with a high mortality rate. Most cerebrovascular events described have been ischemic strokes, but both intracerebral hemorrhage and rarely cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) have also been reported. The diagnosis of CVST can be elusive, with wide-ranging and nonspecific presenting symptoms that can include headache or altered sensorium alone.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the presentation, barriers to diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of CVST in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We abstracted data on all patients diagnosed with CVST and COVID-19 from March 1 to August 9, 2020 at Boston Medical Center. Subsequently, we reviewed the literature and extracted all published cases of CVST in patients with COVID-19 from January 1, 2020 through August 9, 2020 and included all studies with case descriptions.

RESULTS

We describe the clinical features and management of CVST in 3 women with COVID-19 who developed CVST days to months after initial COVID-19 symptoms. Two patients presented with encephalopathy and without focal neurologic deficits, while one presented with visual symptoms. All patients were treated with intravenous hydration and anticoagulation. None suffered hemorrhagic complications, and all were discharged home. We identified 12 other patients with CVST in the setting of COVID-19 via literature search. There was a female predominance (54.5%), most patients presented with altered sensorium (54.5%), and there was a high mortality rate (36.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

During this pandemic, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for CVST in patients with a recent history of COVID-19 presenting with non-specific neurological symptoms such as headache to provide expedient management and prevent complications. The limited data suggests that CVST in COVID-19 is more prevalent in females and may be associated with high mortality.

Coagulopathy, Venous Thromboembolism, and Anticoagulation in Patients with COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has led to a worldwide pandemic, and patients with the infection are referred to as having COVID‐19. Although COVID‐19 is commonly considered a respiratory disease, there is clearly a thrombotic potential that was not expected. The pathophysiology of the disease and subsequent coagulopathy produce an inflammatory, hypercoagulable, and hypofibrinolytic state. Several observational studies have demonstrated surprisingly high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in both general ward and intensive care patients with COVID‐19. Many of these observational studies demonstrate high rates of VTE despite patients being on standard, or even higher intensity, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Fibrinolytic therapy has also been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Unfortunately, high quality randomized controlled trials are lacking. A literature search was performed to provide the most up‐to‐date information on the pathophysiology, coagulopathy, risk of VTE, and prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID‐19. These topics are reviewed in detail, along with practical issues of anticoagulant selection and duration. Although many international organizations have produced guidelines or consensus statements, they do not all cover the same issues regarding anticoagulant therapy for patients with COVID‐19, and they do not all agree. These statements and the most recent literature are combined into a list of clinical considerations that clinicians can use for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID‐19.

Anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials and call for international collaboration

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high incidence of thrombosis and mortality despite standard anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. There is equipoise regarding the optimal dose of anticoagulant intervention in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and consequently, immediate answers from high-quality randomized trials are needed.

METHODS

The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was searched on June 17, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing increased dose to standard dose anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Two authors independently screened the full records for eligibility and extracted data in duplicate.

RESULTS

A total of 20 trials were included in the review. All trials are open label, 5 trials use an adaptive design, 1 trial uses a factorial design, 2 trials combine multi-arm parallel group and factorial designs in flexible platform trials, and at least 15 trials have multiple study sites. With individual target sample sizes ranging from 30 to 3000 participants, the pooled sample size of all included trials is 12 568 participants. Two trials include only intensive care unit patients, and 10 trials base patient eligibility on elevated D-dimer levels. Therapeutic intensity anticoagulation is evaluated in 14 trials. All-cause mortality is part of the primary outcome in 14 trials.

DISCUSSION

Several trials evaluate different dose regimens of anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Because these trials compete for sites and study participants, a collaborative effort is needed to complete trials faster, conduct pooled analyses and bring effective interventions to patients more quickly.

COVID-19-Associated Coagulopathy and Inflammatory Response: What Do We Know Already and What Are the Knowledge Gaps?

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) frequently experience a coagulopathy associated with a high incidence of thrombotic events leading to poor outcomes. Here, biomarkers of coagulation (such as D-dimer, fibrinogen, platelet count), inflammation (such as interleukin-6), and immunity (such as lymphocyte count) as well as clinical scoring systems (such as sequential organ failure assessment [SOFA], International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis disseminated intravascular coagulation [ISTH DIC], and sepsis-induced coagulopathy [SIC] score) can be helpful in predicting clinical course, need for hospital resources (such as intensive care unit [ICU] beds, intubation and ventilator therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) and patient's outcome in patients with COVID-19. However, therapeutic options are actually limited to unspecific supportive therapy. Whether viscoelastic testing can provide additional value in predicting clinical course, need for hospital resources and patient's outcome or in guiding anticoagulation in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy is still incompletely understood and currently under investigation (eg, in the rotational thromboelastometry analysis and standard coagulation tests in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 [ROHOCO] study). This article summarizes what we know already about COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and-perhaps even more importantly-characterizes important knowledge gaps.

Postdischarge thrombosis and hemorrhage in patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a prothrombotic state with a high incidence of thrombotic events during hospitalization; however, data examining rates of thrombosis after discharge are limited. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of discharged patients with confirmed COVID-19 not receiving anticoagulation. The cohort included 163 patients with median time from discharge to last recorded follow-up of 30 days (interquartile range [IQR], 17-46 days). The median duration of index hospitalization was 6 days (IQR, 3-12 days) and 26% required intensive care. The cumulative incidence of thrombosis (including arterial and venous events) at day 30 following discharge was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-7.6); the cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism alone at day 30 postdischarge was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.1-4.6). The 30-day cumulative incidence of major hemorrhage was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1-5.1) and of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds was 2.9% (95% CI, 1.0-9.1). We conclude that the rates of thrombosis and hemorrhage appear to be similar following hospital discharge for COVID-19, emphasizing the need for randomized data to inform recommendations for universal postdischarge thromboprophylaxis.

The hypercoagulable state in COVID-19: Incidence, pathophysiology, and management

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents with a large variety of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic carrier state to severe respiratory distress, multiple organ dysfunction and death. While it was initially considered primarily a respiratory illness, rapidly accumulating data suggests that COVID-19 results in a unique, profoundly prothrombotic milieu leading to both arterial and venous thrombosis. Consistently, elevated D-dimer level has emerged as an independent risk factor for poor outcomes, including death. Several other laboratory markers and blood counts have also been associated with poor prognosis, possibly due to their connection to thrombosis. At present, the pathophysiology underlying the hypercoagulable state is poorly understood. However, a growing body of data suggests that the initial events occur in the lung. A severe inflammatory response, originating in the alveoli, triggers a dysfunctional cascade of inflammatory thrombosis in the pulmonary vasculature, leading to a state of local coagulopathy. This is followed, in patients with more severe disease, by a generalized hypercoagulable state that results in macro- and microvascular thrombosis. Of concern, is the observation that anticoagulation may be inadequate in many circumstances, highlighting the need for alternative or additional therapies. Numerous ongoing studies investigating the pathophysiology of the COVID-19 associated coagulopathy may provide mechanistic insights that can direct appropriate interventional strategies.

Massive pulmonary embolism following recovery from COVID-19 infection: inflammation, thrombosis and the role of extended thromboprophylaxis

COVID-19 is the infectious disease caused by a recently discovered SARS-CoV-2. Following an initial outbreak in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, the virus has spread globally culminating in the WHO declaring a pandemic on 11 March 2020. We present the case of a patient with an initial presentation of COVID-19 pneumonitis requiring mechanical ventilation for nearly 2 weeks and total admission time of 3 weeks. She was given prophylactic dose anticoagulation according to hospital protocol during this time. Following a week at home, she was readmitted with acute massive pulmonary embolism with severe respiratory and cardiac failure, representing the first such case in the literature.

Incidence of thrombosis and hemorrhage in hospitalized cancer patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a recognized prothrombotic state. Patients hospitalized with active cancer are predisposed to thrombosis but whether active cancer further amplifies thrombotic risk with COVID-19 is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cumulative incidences of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without active cancer at 28 days.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive adults hospitalized with COVID-19 was performed. Active cancer required cancer-directed therapy within previous 6 months. The cumulative incidences of thrombosis or hemorrhage were estimated considering death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Patients without cancer (n = 353) and active cancer (n = 45) were comparable in terms of age, sex, antibiotics administered, length of hospitalization, and critical care. The most common malignancies were lymphoid (17.8%), gastrointestinal (15.6%), lung (13.3%), and genitourinary (13.3%). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of thrombotic events was 18.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.2%-27.9%) in the non-cancer cohort and 14.2% (95% CI, 4.7%-28.7%) in the cancer cohort. The cumulative incidence of major and fatal bleeding at day 28 was 20.8% (95% CI, 12.1%-31.0%) in the non-cancer group and 19.5% (95% CI, 5.5%-39.8%) in the cancer cohort. Three patients experienced fatal bleeds, all of whom were in the non-cancer cohort. Survival was significantly shorter in the group with active cancer (P = .038).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a similarly high incidence of thrombosis and bleeding among patients admitted with COVID-19 with or without active cancer.

A case-report of widespread pulmonary embolism in a middle-aged male seven weeks after asymptomatic suspected COVID 19 infection

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is seen in high frequency in hospital-treated patients with Covid-19. We present a case of suspected Covid-19 with long-term dyspnea and widespread PE.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 51- year old male, with no prior medical history, no medication, and non-smoker arrived at the emergency department with exercise induced dyspnea during 4-5 weeks and for the last 48 h dyspnea at rest. Seven weeks before hospitalization, he felt difficulties taking deep breaths for some days but no other symptoms. Oxygen saturation at rest was 93%. Troponin T was 1200 mg/L (ref < 15 mg/L). CT angiography revealed widespread bilateral segmental pulmonary embolism. Additional findings were ground glass opacities that could match Covid-19. The patient tested negative for SARS -CoV-2. Full dose tinzaparin was given for 2 days in hospital, followed by apixaban for 6 months. Recovery has been uneventful so far.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term breathing difficulties might be relatively common after non-hospitalized symptomatic Covid-19. The frequency of PE in this group is unknown. We report a case of suspected covid-19 with widespread PE and a long history of dyspnea but no other symptoms. In our case slight hypoxia and laboratory testing indicated significant disease, which was proven with contrast angiography. This case shows that PE is a differential diagnosis in non-hospitalized symptomatic Covid-19 with persisting breathing problems.

Venous Thromboembolism among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Undergoing Thromboprophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Preliminary evidence indicates that prophylactic-dose thromboprophylaxis may be inadequate to control the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the D-dimer measurement is useful for VTE risk stratification among COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to offer benchmark data on the incidence of VTE and to examine the difference in D-dimer levels among anticoagulated COVID-19 patients with and without VTE incident. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of PubMed from inception to May 2020 was performed for original studies that reported the frequency of VTE and death among COVID-19 patients who received thromboprophylaxis on hospitalization. The endpoints included VTE (a composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT)), PE, DVT, and mortality. Results: A total of 11 cohort studies were included. Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 23.9% (95% confidence interval (CI), 16.2% to 33.7%; I² = 93%) developed VTE despite anticoagulation. PE and DVT were detected in 11.6% (95% CI, 7.5% to 17.5%; I² = 92%) and 11.9% (95% CI, 6.3% to 21.3%; I² = 93%) of patients, respectively. Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) had a higher risk for VTE (30.4% )95% CI, 19.6% to 43.9%)) than those in the ward (13.0% (95% CI, 5.9% to 26.3%)). The mortality was estimated at 21.3% (95% CI, 17.0% to 26.4%; I² = 53%). COVID-19 patients who developed VTE had higher D-dimer levels than those who did not develop VTE (mean difference, 2.05 µg/mL; 95% CI, 0.30 to 3.80 µg/mL; P = 0.02). Conclusions: The heightened and heterogeneous risk of VTE in COVID-19 despite prophylactic anticoagulation calls into research on the pathogenesis of thromboembolic complications and strategy of thromboprophylaxis and risk stratification. Prominent elevation of D-dimer may be associated with VTE development and can be used to identify high-risk subsets.

Anticoagulation practice patterns in COVID-19: A global survey

Background

Best practice for prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown due to limited published data in this population.

Objectives

We aimed to assess current global practice and experience in management of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy to identify information to guide prospective and randomized studies.

Methods

Physicians were queried about their current approach to prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19 using an online survey tool distributed through multiple international organizations between April 10 and 14, 2020.

Results

Five hundred fifteen physicians from 41 countries responded. The majority of respondents (78%) recommended prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with most recommending use of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. Significant practice variation was found regarding the need for dose escalation of anticoagulation outside the setting of confirmed or suspected VTE. Respondents reported the use of bedside testing when unable to perform standard diagnostic imaging for diagnosis of VTE. Two hundred ninety-one respondents reported observing thrombotic complications in their patients, with 64% noting that the complication was pulmonary embolism. Of the 44% of respondents who estimated incidence of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 in their hospital, estimates ranged widely from 1% to 50%. One hundred seventy-four respondents noted bleeding complications (34% minor bleeding, 14% clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and 12% major bleeding).

Conclusion

Well-designed epidemiologic studies are urgently needed to understand the incidence and risk factors of VTE and bleeding complications in patients with COVID-19. Randomized clinical trials addressing use of anticoagulation are also needed.

Thromboembolic events and Covid-19

The novel Corona virus infection (Covid-19) first identified in China in December 2019 has rapidly progressed in pandemic leading to significant mortality and unprecedented challenge for healthcare systems. Although the clinical spectrum of Covid-19 is variable, acute respiratory failure and systemic coagulopathy are common in severe Covid-19 patients. Lung is an important target of the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing eventually acute respiratory distress syndrome associated to a thromboinflammatory state. The cytokinic storm, thromboinflammation and pulmonary tropism are the bedrock of tissue lesions responsible for acute respiratory failure and for prolonged infection that may lead to multiple organ failure and death. The thrombogenicity of this infectious disease is illustrated by the high frequency of thromboembolic events observed even in Covid-19 patients treated with anticoagulation. Increased D-Dimers, a biomarker reflecting activation of hemostasis and fibrinolysis, and low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) are associated with higher mortality in Covid-19 patients. In this review, we will summarize our current knowledge on the thromboembolic manifestations, the disturbed hemostatic parameters, and the thromboinflammatory conditions associated to Covid-19 and we will discuss the modalities of anticoagulant treatment or other potential antithrombotic options.

Viral Coagulopathy in Patients With COVID-19: Treatment and Care

COVID-19 has proven to be particularly challenging given the complex pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2. Early data have demonstrated how the host response to this novel coronavirus leads to the proliferation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, massive endothelial damage, and generalized vascular manifestations. While SARS-CoV-2 primarily targets the upper and lower respiratory tract, other organ systems are also affected. SARS-CoV-2 relies on 2 host cell receptors for successful attachment: angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane protease serine 2. Clinicopathologic reports have demonstrated associations between severe COVID-19 and viral coagulopathy, resulting in pulmonary embolism; venous, arterial, and microvascular thrombosis; lung endothelial injury; and associated thrombotic complications leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome. Viral coagulopathy is not novel given similar observations with SARS classic, including the consumption of platelets, generation of thrombin, and increased fibrin degradation product exhibiting overt disseminated intravascular coagulation–like syndrome. The specific mechanism(s) behind the thrombotic complications in COVID-19 patients has yet to be fully understood. Parenteral anticoagulants, such as heparin and low-molecular-weights heparins, are widely used in the management of COVID-19 patients. Beyond the primary (anticoagulant) effects of these agents, they may exhibit antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and cytoprotective effects. Direct oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents are also useful in the management of these patients. Tissue plasminogen activator and other fibrinolytic modalities may also be helpful in the overall management. Catheter-directed thrombolysis can be used in patients developing pulmonary embolism. Further investigations are required to understand the molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19-associated thrombotic complications.

Thrombosis and COVID-19 pneumonia: the clot thickens!

At the end of last year, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), resulted in an acute respiratory illness epidemic in Wuhan, China [1, 2]. The World Health Organization (WHO) termed this illness coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The coronavirus family have been shown to enter cells through binding angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2), found mainly on alveolar epithelium and endothelium. Activation of endothelial cells is thought to be the primary driver for the increasingly recognised complication of thrombosis.

Pulmonary thrombosis appears to be common in COVID-19 pneumonia and takes two forms, proximal pulmonary emboli and/or distal thrombosis. The possible mechanisms and clinical implications are discussed.https://bit.ly/372Xdhw

Pharmacological Agents Targeting Thromboinflammation in COVID-19: Review and Implications for Future Research

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), currently a worldwide pandemic, is a viral illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The suspected contribution of thrombotic events to morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients has prompted a search for novel potential options for preventing COVID-19-associated thrombotic disease. In this article by the Global COVID-19 Thrombosis Collaborative Group, we describe novel dosing approaches for commonly used antithrombotic agents (especially heparin-based regimens) and the potential use of less widely used antithrombotic drugs in the absence of confirmed thrombosis. Although these therapies may have direct antithrombotic effects, other mechanisms of action, including anti-inflammatory or antiviral effects, have been postulated. Based on survey results from this group of authors, we suggest research priorities for specific agents and subgroups of patients with COVID-19. Further, we review other agents, including immunomodulators, that may have antithrombotic properties. It is our hope that the present document will encourage and stimulate future prospective studies and randomized trials to study the safety, efficacy, and optimal use of these agents for prevention or management of thrombosis in COVID-19.

Basic Critical Care for Management of COVID-19 Patients: Position Paper of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, Part II

In a resource-limited country like India, rationing of scarce critical care resources might be required to ensure appropriate delivery of care to the critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. Most of these patients require critical care support because of respiratory failure or presence of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. As there is no pharmacological therapy available, respiratory support in the form of supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation remains mainstay of care in intensive care units. As there is still dearth of direct evidence, most of the data are extrapolated from the experience gained from the management of general critical care patients.

How to cite this article: Juneja D, Savio RD, Srinivasan S, Pandit RA, Ramasubban S, Reddy PK, et al. Basic Critical Care for Management of COVID-19 Patients: Position Paper of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, Part II. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 5):S254–S262.