Anticoagulation practice patterns in COVID-19: A global survey

Antithrombotic Use Patterns in COVID-19 Patients from Spain: A Real-World Data Study

Antithrombotics have been widely used to treat and prevent COVID-19-related thrombosis; however, studies on their use at population levels are limited. We aimed to describe antithrombotic use patterns during the pandemic in Spanish primary care and hospital-admitted patients with COVID-19. Methods: A real-world data study was performed. Data were obtained from BIFAP's electronic health records. We investigated the antithrombotic prescriptions made within ±14 days after diagnosis between March 2020 and February 2022, divided their use into prior and new/naive groups, and reported their post-discharge use. Results: We included 882,540 individuals (53.4% women), of whom 78,499 were hospitalized. The median age was 44.7 (IQR 39-59). Antithrombotics were prescribed in 37,183 (4.6%) primary care subjects and 42,041 (53.6%) hospital-admitted patients, of whom 7505 (20.2%) and 20,300 (48.3%), respectively, were naive users. Prior users were older and had more comorbidities than new users. Enoxaparin was the most prescribed antithrombotic in hospitals, with higher prescription rates in new than prior users (2348.2, IQR 2390-3123.1 vs. 1378, IQR 1162-1751.6 prescriptions per 10,000 cases, p = 0.002). In primary care, acetylsalicylic acid was the most used antithrombotic, with higher use rates in prior than in naïve users. Post-discharge use occurred in 6686 (15.9%) subjects (median use = 10 days, IQR 9-30). Conclusions: Our study identified a consensus on prescribing antithrombotics in COVID-19 patients, but with low use rates in hospitals.

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19. This evidence-based guideline serves as a useful decision aid for Nordic anaesthesiologists caring for patients with COVID-19.

Anticoagulation and Thrombotic Events in the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children: Experience of a Single-center Cohort and Review of the Literature

The multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a severe clinical entity affecting the coagulative system; although thromboembolic events (TEs) are not common, most patients receive anticoagulation. We retrospectively assessed patients below 18 years admitted with MIS-C at Meyer Children's Hospital (Florence, Italy). Data on baseline clinical and laboratory presentation, treatment, and outcome, including differences between patients with and without thrombotic prophylaxis, were analyzed. Thirty-two children 1 to 15 years were included. Seventeen patients (53.1%) required intensive care admission, 2 (8.7%) had obesity, 7 (30.4%) a central venous catheter, and 14 (43.8%) an impaired cardiac function. Twelve patients (37.5%) received prophylactic anticoagulation: they had more frequent cardiac involvement (91.7 vs. 50%, P =0.02) and higher ferritin levels (median 1240 vs. 501.5 ng/mL, P <0.001). No differences were found in median d -dimers between the 2 groups. Twenty-one patients (65.6%) had d -dimers >5×upper limit of normal but the indication for anticoagulation was not driven by d -dimers. No patient had hemorrhagic events and only 1 patient (3.1%) had a superficial thrombotic event (under thromboprophylaxis). Our series and the available literature data on MIS-C and thromboembolic events suggest that TEs are a rare complication of MIS-C that is frequently associated with high d -dimer values. However, also in MIS-C, the well-established risk factors of pediatric TEs (ie, older age, central venous catheter, obesity, and cancer) should guide thromboembolic risk assessment.

The Collateral Benefit of COVID Pandemic: Improved Pharmacological Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Practices in Non-COVID Patients

Background

COVID-19 creates a hypercoagulable state with a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. Of those, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is prevalent, and numerous studies have highlighted the importance of VTE prophylaxis. Pre-pandemic VTE prophylaxis practices have already been poor, despite guidelines. We hypothesized that the gap between guidelines and practices might have been closed due to increased awareness.

Materials and Methods

Non-COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the internal medicine ward of a university hospital between January 1st, 2021, and June 30th, 2021, were assessed. VTE risk and thromboprophylaxis requirements were assessed using the Padua Prediction Score (PPS). The results were compared with the findings of the study conducted in the same setting before the pandemic.

Results

A total of 267 patients were included, and 81 patients (30.3%) received prophylaxis. A total of 128 patients' (47.9%) PPS was ≥ 4, and 69 patients (53.9%) received prophylaxis; 12 low-risk patients (8.6%) received prophylaxis although it was not indicated. Compared to the pre-pandemic figures, both appropriate prophylaxis use and overuse rates have risen. While the increment rate of appropriate prophylaxis was statistically significant, the increment rate of overuse did not reach statistical significance. Patients hospitalized for infectious diseases and respiratory failure were more likely to receive appropriate prophylaxis.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated a significant increase in appropriate pharmacologic prophylaxis rates among high-risk patients. Besides all the collateral damage the pandemic has created, it might also have brought collateral benefits with regards to VTE prophylaxis.

The intensity of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An observational, comparative effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

The question of anticoagulant dosing in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is unresolved, with randomized trials showing mixed results and heterogeneity of treatment effects for in-hospital death.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between the intensity of anticoagulation and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and respiratory impairment who were hospitalized between 3/1/2020-12/31/2020 in two Kaiser Permanente regions.

EXPOSURE AND MAIN OUTCOME

We fit propensity score models using categorical regression to estimate the probability of receiving standard prophylactic, intermediate, or full-dose anticoagulation beginning on the day of admission or on the day of first respiratory deterioration. Exposure was defined by the highest dose on the day of admission or within 24 hours after deterioration. The primary outcome was in-hospital death.

RESULTS

We included 17,130 patients in the day of admission analysis and 4,924 patients who experienced respiratory deterioration. There were no differences in propensity score-adjusted odds of in-hospital death for patients who received either intermediate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.89-1.12) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.17) compared with standard prophylaxis beginning on the day of admission. Similarly, there were no differences in in-hospital death for either intermediate (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.82) or full anticoagulation (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.90-2.51) compared with standard prophylaxis on the day of deterioration.

CONCLUSION

Results of this real-world, comparative effectiveness study showed no differences in in-hospital death among newly admitted or deteriorating patients with COVID-19 who received intermediate-dose or full anticoagulation compared with standard prophylaxis.

Approach to Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19: Global Updates and Clinical Insights from India

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) frequently occurs in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and is associated with increased mortality. Several global guidelines recommended prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation rather than intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related acute or critical illness without suspected or confirmed VTE. Even though standard doses of thromboprophylaxis are received, many cases of thrombotic complications are reported; hence, appropriate and adequate thromboprophylaxis is critical for the prevention of VTE in COVID-19. In spite of an increased prevalence of VTE in Indian patients, sufficient data on patient characteristics, diagnosis, and therapeutic approach for VTE in COVID is lacking. In this article, we review the available global literature (search conducted up to 31 May 2021) and provide clinical insights into our approach towards managing VTE in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, in this review, we summarize the incidence and risk factors for VTE with emphasis on the thromboprophylaxis approach in hospitalized patients and special populations with COVID-19 and assess clinical implications in the Indian context.

Comparison of Higher-Than-Standard to D-Dimer Driven Thromboprophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 is a global health threat often accompanied with coagulopathy. Despite use of thromboprophylaxis in this population, thrombotic event rates are high. Materials and methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study comparing the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis strategies at 2 institutions in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Regimen A utilized a higher-than-standard thromboprophylaxis dosage and Regimen B received full-dose anticoagulation for any D-dimer 3 mcg/mL or greater and prophylactic for less than 3 mcg/mL. The primary outcome compared the rate of thrombotic events between treatment groups. Secondary endpoints compared rates of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding as well as the proportion of patients in each group experiencing thrombotic events within 30 days of discharge. Results: One-hundred fifty-three patients were included in the analysis, 64 receiving Regimen A and 89 receiving Regimen B. Seven (4.6%) thrombotic events occurred, 3 (4.7%) in patients receiving Regimen A, and 4 (4.5%) in Regimen B (P = 1.0). Twelve patients (13.5%) receiving Regimen B had a bleeding event versus 2 (3.1%) in Regimen A (P = .04), half of which were major in each group. All patients who bled in either treatment group were receiving mechanical ventilation, and 12 of 14 were receiving full-dose anticoagulation. One patient receiving Regimen A was readmitted with a pulmonary embolism. Conclusions: In this study, the thromboprophylactic regimen impacted bleeding, but no significant difference was seen with thrombotic outcomes. Almost all patients who experienced a bleed were mechanically ventilated and receiving full-dose anticoagulation. The use of full-dose anticoagulation should be cautioned in this population without an additional indication.

Screening the Potential Biomarkers of COVID-19-Related Thrombosis Through Bioinformatics Analysis

A high proportion of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience thrombosis, and there is a strong correlation between anticoagulant therapy and the COVID-19 survival rate, indicating that common COVID-19 and thrombosis targets have potential therapeutic value for severe COVID-19.Gene expression profiling data were downloaded from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), and common differentially expressed genes (co-DEGs) were identified. The potential biological functions of these co-DEGs were explored by functional enrichment analysis, and protein–protein interaction (PPI) networks were constructed to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of the co-DEGs. Finally, hub genes in the co-DEG network were identified, and correlation analysis was performed.We identified 8320 upregulated genes and 7651 downregulated genes from blood samples of COVID-19 patients and 368 upregulated genes and 240 downregulated genes from blood samples of thrombosis patients. The enriched cellular component terms were mainly related to cytosolic ribosomes and ribosomal subunits. The enriched molecular function terms were mainly related to structural constituents of ribosomes and electron transfer activity. Construction of the PPI network and identification of hub genes ultimately confirmed that RPS7, IGF1R, DICER1, ERH, MCTS1, and TNPO1 were jointly upregulated hub genes, and FLNA and PXN were jointly downregulated hub genes.The identification of novel potential biomarkers provides new options for treating COVID-19-related thrombosis and reducing the rate of severe COVID-19.

Biomarkers of Cardiac Injury, Renal Injury, and Inflammation Are Strong Mediators of Sex-Associated Death in COVID-19

Background

Studies examining outcomes among individuals with COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have consistently demonstrated that men have worse outcomes than women, with a higher incidence of myocardial injury, respiratory failure, and death. However, mechanisms of higher morbidity and mortality among men remain poorly understood. We aimed to identify mediators of the relationship between sex and COVID-19-associated mortality.

Methods

Patients hospitalized at two quaternary care facilities, New York Presbyterian Hospital (CUIMC/NYPH) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), for SARS-CoV-2 infection between February and May 2020 were included. Five independent biomarkers were identified as mediators of sex effects, including high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTNT), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), ferritin, D-dimer, and creatinine.

Results

In the CUIMC/NYPH cohort (n = 2,626, 43% female), male sex was associated with significantly greater mortality (26 vs. 21%, p = 0.0146) and higher peak hs-cTNT, hs-CRP, ferritin, D-dimer, and creatinine (p &lt; 0.001). The effect of male sex on the primary outcome of death was partially mediated by peak values of all five biomarkers, suggesting that each pathophysiological pathway may contribute to increased risk of death in men. Hs-cTnT, creatinine, and hs-CRP were the strongest mediators. Findings were highly consistent in the MGH cohort with the exception of D-dimer.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the effect of sex on COVID-19 outcomes is mediated by cardiac and kidney injury, as well as underlying differences in inflammation and iron metabolism. Exploration of these specific pathways may facilitate sex-directed diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for patients with COVID-19 and provides a framework for the study of sex differences in other complex diseases.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Neurological Complications in COVID-19 Patients With ECMO Support: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory disease (ARDS) increasingly receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. While ECMO has been shown to increase risk of stroke, few studies have examined this association in COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to characterise neurological events during ECMO support in COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review of cohort and large case series of COVID-19 patients who received ECMO support.

DATA SOURCES

Studies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRχiv from inception to November 11, 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were a) Adult population (>18 year old); b) Positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 with active COVID-19 disease; c) ECMO therapy due to COVID-19 ARDS; and d) Neurological events and outcome described while on ECMO support. We excluded articles when no details of neurologic events were available.

RESULTS

1,322 patients from 12 case series and retrospective cohort studies were included in our study. The median age was 49.2, and 75% (n=985) of the patients were male. Diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia were the most common comorbidities (24% and 20%, respectively). Most (95%, n=1,241) patients were on venovenous ECMO with a median P:F ratio at the time of ECMO cannulation of 69.1. The prevalence of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), ischaemic stroke, and hypoxic ischaemic brain injury (HIBI) was 5.9% (n=78), 1.1% (n=15), and 0.3% (n=4), respectively. The overall mortality of the 1,296 ECMO patients in the 10 studies that reported death was 36% (n=477), and the mortality of the subset of patients who had a neurological event was 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurological injury is a concern for COVID-19 patients who receive ECMO. Further research is required to explore how neuromonitoring protocols can inform tailored anticoagulation management and improve survival in COVID-19 patients with ECMO support.

The COVID-19 Patient in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

COVID-19 continues to rampage around the world. Noncritical care-trained physicians may be deployed into the intensive care unit to manage these complex patients. Although COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease, it is also associated with significant pathology in the brain, heart, vasculature, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and kidneys. This article provides an overview of COVID-19 using an organ-based, systematic approach.

Intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for coagulopathy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Background

Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal anticoagulant strategy has not yet been defined. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis on the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 10th 2021. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Baseline characteristics and relevant data of each study were extracted in a pre-designed standardized data-collection form. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were incidence of thrombotic events and incidence of any bleeding and major bleeding. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk with 95 % CIs.

Results

This meta-analysis included 42 studies with 28,055 in-hospital COVID-19 patients totally. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR=1.12, 95 %CI 0.99-1.25, p=0.06, I²=77 %) and lower incidence of thrombotic events (RR=1.30, 95 %CI 0.79-2.15, p=0.30, I²=88 %), but increased the risk of any bleeding events (RR=2.16, 95 %CI 1.79-2.60, p<0.01, I²=31 %) and major bleeding events significantly (RR=2.10, 95 %CI 1.77-2.51, p<0.01, I²=11 %) versus prophylactic anticoagulation. Moreover, intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation decreased the incidence of thrombotic events (RR=0.71, 95 %CI 0.56-0.89, p=0.003, I²=0 %) among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), with increased bleeding risk (RR=1.66, 95 %CI 1.37-2.00, p<0.01, I²=0 %) and unchanged in-hospital mortality (RR=0.94, 95 %CI 0.79-1.10, p=0.42, I²=30 %) in such patients. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

Conclusions

We recommend the use of prophylactic anticoagulation against intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation among unselected hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering insignificant survival benefits but higher risk of bleeding in the escalated thromboprophylaxis strategy. For critically ill COVID-19 patients, the benefits of intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation in reducing thrombotic events should be weighed cautiously because of its association with higher risk of bleeding.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on August 17th 2021 (CRD42021273780).

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12959-021-00343-1.

Thromboembolic Rates Are Similar Between Intensive Care Unit and Nonintensive Care Unit Hospitalized Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Retrospective Cohort Study

High rates of thromboembolic events have been described in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Data regarding thromboembolic events in all hospitalized patients has been less frequently reported, raising concerns that thromboembolic events in non-ICU may be underrecognized. In addition, optimal anticoagulation type and dose is still unsettled at this time. This is a retrospective cohort study of 159 hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia during a 9-month period to determine an association between the frequency of thromboembolic rates and hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Secondary outcomes sought to investigate association of thromboembolic events with relation to place of admission, risk factors, anticoagulation, mortality, hospital length of stay, and discharge disposition. Among the cohort of 159 hospitalized patients who met criteria, 16 (10%) were diagnosed with a thromboembolic event. There were a total of 18 thromboembolic events with 12 venous and 6 arterial. Admission to the ICU was not associated with a higher frequency of thromboembolic events compared with non-ICU patients (37.5% vs 62.5%), p = .71. Patients with a thromboembolic event had a significantly higher mortality compared with those with no thromboembolic event (37.5% vs 13.3%), p = .012. Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have increased rates of thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, which contribute to a significant increase in mortality. However, the frequency of thromboembolism in patients admitted to the ICU was similar to events in non-ICU patients. We hope to increase awareness of the increased risk of hypercoagulability in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 including non-ICU patients.

A review of aortic thrombosis in COVID-19 infection

Aim: As the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacts the global healthcare system, evolving data show increased frequency of arterial and venous thromboembolism among patients with COVID-19 infection. Aortic thrombus is a rare thrombotic event with a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations and potential catastrophic complications. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment dilemmas of aortic thrombus with COVID-19 infection and raise awareness among frontline medical providers. Aortic thrombosis is rare, but if not considered early in the course of COVID-19 infection, the data suggest that the diagnosis will probably not be made until potentially serious complications arise. Methods: Literature review was conducted between November 1, 2019, and November 14, 2020, on PubMed and Embase to identify publications regarding aortic thrombosis among COVID-19 cases. Results: Most of the patients were male with a median age of 67 years, and had comorbidities (most commonly hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus). In our study, underlying atherosclerosis, a common risk factor for aortic thrombus, was identified among 56% of the patients. Aortic thrombus was symptomatic in 62% of these patients and most commonly manifested itself as acute limb ischemia (46%), whereas 30% of cases were found incidentally during the investigation of elevated inflammatory markers or increased oxygen requirement. Treatment was individualized given the lack of established guidelines for aortic thrombus, including anticoagulation, systemic and catheter directed thrombolysis, and surgical thrombectomy. Overall mortality was found to be 30% in our study. Conclusions: Although rare, aortic thrombus has high morbidity and mortality, and can present without any symptoms or underlying aortic disease. Aortic thrombosis is rare, but if not considered early in the course of COVID-19 infection, the data suggest that the diagnosis will probably not be made until potentially serious complications arise.

The CoVID-TE risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have increased risks of venous (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Active cancer diagnosis and treatment are well-known risk factors; however, a risk assessment model (RAM) for VTE in patients with both cancer and COVID-19 is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of and risk factors for thrombosis in hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19.

METHODS

Among patients with cancer in the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry (CCC19) cohort study, we assessed the incidence of VTE and ATE within 90 days of COVID-19-associated hospitalization. A multivariable logistic regression model specifically for VTE was built using a priori determined clinical risk factors. A simplified RAM was derived and internally validated using bootstrap.

RESULTS

From March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020, 2804 hospitalized patients were analyzed. The incidence of VTE and ATE was 7.6% and 3.9%, respectively. The incidence of VTE, but not ATE, was higher in patients receiving recent anti-cancer therapy. A simplified RAM for VTE was derived and named CoVID-TE (Cancer subtype high to very-high risk by original Khorana score +1, VTE history +2, ICU admission +2, D-dimer elevation +1, recent systemic anti-cancer Therapy +1, and non-Hispanic Ethnicity +1). The RAM stratified patients into two cohorts (low-risk, 0-2 points, n = 1423 vs. high-risk, 3+ points, n = 1034) where VTE occurred in 4.1% low-risk and 11.3% high-risk patients (c statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.71). The RAM performed similarly well in subgroups of patients not on anticoagulant prior to admission and moderately ill patients not requiring direct ICU admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients with cancer and COVID-19 have elevated thrombotic risks. The CoVID-TE RAM for VTE prediction may help real-time data-driven decisions in this vulnerable population.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.

METHODS

In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Thromboprophylaxis in Patients with COVID-19: Systematic Review of National and International Clinical Guidance Reports

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common among patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefits; however, the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy has not yet been defined. <P> Objective: To identify published guidance reports by national and international societies regarding thromboprophylaxis strategies in COVID-19 patients in different settings (outpatients, hospitalized, post-discharge). <P> Methods: A systematic review of the literature (Pubmed/EMBASE) was conducted independently by two investigators. <P> Results: Among 1942 initially identified articles, 33 guidance documents were included: 20 published by national and 13 by international societies. These documents provide recommendations mainly for hospitalized (97% of reports) and post-discharge (75%) COVID-19 patients, and less so for outpatients (34%). Thrombotic and bleeding risk stratification prior to any treatment decision is the cornerstone of all suggested thromboprophylaxis strategies; 81% of the documents recommend thromboprophylaxis for all hospitalized patients with a prophylactic dosage of low molecular weight heparin irrespective of VTE risk. Intermediate or therapeutic dose intensity is recommended in high VTE risk patients by 56% and 28% of documents, respectively. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis is suggested in case of high bleeding risk or contraindication to pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (59% of documents). Extended pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients with high VTE risk after hospital discharge (63% of documents). For non-hospitalized outpatients, 28% of documents recommend pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for high VTE risk. <P> Conclusion: The current guidance identifies thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 patients, especially during hospitalization, as of major importance for the prevention of VTE. Recommendations are derived from limited evidence from observational studies.

Potential Dexamethasone-Direct Oral Anticoagulant Drug Interaction: Is This a Concern in COVID?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the literature on a potential dexamethasone-direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drug interaction and provide management considerations with COVID hypercoagulability.

DATA SOURCES

A search of EMBASE, PubMed, and Google Scholar (January 1990 to May 2021), limited to the English language, using applicable search terms resulted in 137 articles, with 21 relevant articles included. Regulatory agency and clinical guidance documents were also reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Included articles describe in vitro or in vivo animal or human data for dexamethasone induction of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 or P-glycoprotein (P-gp).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Dexamethasone has the potential to interact with the DOACs via CYP3A4 and/or P-gp induction. Only apixaban and rivaroxaban have CYP3A4 metabolism. Dexamethasone can increase CYP3A4 activity by up to 70% and reduce the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of CYP3A4 substrates by >40%, which is consistent with criteria for a weak CYP inducer. In rodents, dexamethasone P-gp induction is associated with AUC reductions of 20% to 50%. Human data are lacking.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Severe COVID-19 infection is associated with hypercoagulability. Although heparins are the preferred anticoagulants for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, DOACs are being utilized. Dexamethasone is recommended for hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen. The concurrent use of dexamethasone and apixaban or rivaroxaban in such patients carries the potential for reduced anticoagulant effect during a state of heightened thrombotic risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent use of dexamethasone and apixaban or rivaroxaban in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with laboratory evidence of COVID coagulopathy should be avoided until higher-quality data are available.

Challenges in the diagnostic approach of suspected pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients

Accumulating studies on COVID-19 patients report high incidences of thrombotic complications, but guidance on the best diagnostic approach for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients is lacking. Diagnosing PE in these patients is challenging as signs and symptoms of PE and COVID-19 show wide overlap, D-dimer levels are often elevated in the absence of thrombosis and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) may be unfeasible in the case of severe renal impairment and/or hemodynamic instability.This narrative review discusses available literature and guidelines on current diagnostic algorithms for suspected PE in special patient populations, in particular COVID-19. A special focus is on reviewing the literature aimed at identifying symptoms with a high suspicion for PE and on the diagnostic performance of diagnostic algorithms for suspected PE in the setting of COVID-19.Based on available literature, the index of suspicion for PE should be high in the case of unexplained abrupt worsening of respiratory status, typical symptoms of deep-vein thrombosis and/or acute unexplained right ventricular dysfunction. Despite the lack of prospective diagnostic management studies, we propose to adhere to current diagnostic algorithms applying assessment of pretest probability and D-dimer testing as available evidence suggests that these might be considered safe. Preferably, algorithms using adjusted D-dimer thresholds are recommended as it likely improves the yield of the clinical decision rule/D-dimer combination.

Bleeding risk by intensity of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Studies report hypercoagulability in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), leading many institutions to escalate anticoagulation intensity for thrombosis prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the bleeding risk with various intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viral illnesses (ORVI).

PATIENTS/METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared the incidence of major bleeding in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) within a single health system with COVID-19 versus ORVI. In the COVID-19 cohort, we assessed the effect of anticoagulation intensity received on ICU admission on bleeding risk. We performed a secondary analysis with anticoagulation intensity as a time-varying covariate to reflect dose changes after ICU admission.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-three and 387 patients were included in the COVID-19 and ORVI cohorts, respectively. The hazard ratio of major bleeding for the COVID-19 cohort relative to the ORVI cohort was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.86). In COVID-19 patients, an inverse-probability treatment weighted model found therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation on ICU admission had an adjusted hazard ratio of bleeding of 1.55 (95% CI: 0.88-2.73) compared with standard prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation. However, when anticoagulation was assessed as a time-varying covariate and adjusted for other risk factors for bleeding, the adjusted hazard ratio for bleeding on therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation compared with standard thromboprophylaxis was 2.59 (95% CI: 1.20-5.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 had a similar bleeding risk as ORVI patients. When accounting for changes in anticoagulation that occurred in COVID-19 patients, therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation was associated with a greater risk of major bleeding compared with standard thromboprophylaxis.

Major bleeding complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia

As patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) have high rates of thrombosis, high doses of thromboprophylaxis have been proposed. The associated bleeding risk remains unknown. We investigated major bleeding complications in ICU COVID-19 patients and we examined their relationship with inflammation and thromboprophylaxis. Retrospective monocentric study of consecutive adult patients admitted in ICU for COVID-19 pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation. Data collected included demographics, anticoagulation status, coagulation tests and outcomes including major bleeding and thrombotic events. Among 56 ICU COVID-19 patients, 10 (18%) patients had major bleeding and 16 (29%) thrombotic events. Major bleeding occurred later than thrombosis after ICU admission [17(14–23) days versus 9(3–11) days respectively (p = 0.005)]. Fibrinogen concentration always decreased several days [4(3–5) days] before bleeding; D-dimers followed the same trend. All bleeding patients were treated with anticoagulants and anticoagulation was overdosed for 6 (60%) patients on the day of bleeding or the day before. In the whole cohort, overdose was measured in 22 and 78% of patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation during fibrinogen increase and decrease respectively (p < 0.05). Coagulation disorders had biphasic evolution during COVID-19: first thrombotic events during initial hyperinflammation, then bleeding events once inflammation reduced, as confirmed by fibrinogen and d-dimers decrease. Most bleeding events complicated heparin overdose, promoted by inflammation decrease, suggesting to carefully monitor heparin during COVID-19. Thromboprophylaxis may be adapted to this biphasic evolution, with initial high doses reduced to standard doses once the high thrombotic risk period ends and fibrinogen decreases, to prevent bleeding events.

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.

Vigilance on New-Onset Atherosclerosis Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has become a global challenge to public health. While its typical clinical manifestations are respiratory disorders, emerging evidence of cardiovascular complications indicates the adverse interaction between SARS-CoV-2 infection and cardiovascular outcomes. Given that viral infection has emerged as an additional risk factor for atherosclerosis, in this paper, we attempt to clarify the susceptibility to new-onset atherosclerosis in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Mechanistically, serving as functional receptors for SARS-CoV-2, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) mediates SARS-CoV-2 infection of endothelial cells (ECs) directly, leading to endothelial dysfunction and dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). In addition, high expression of CD147, an alternative receptor, and activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome may also contribute to atherosclerosis in the context of COVID-19. More importantly, SARS-CoV-2 attacks the immune system, which results in excessive inflammation and perpetuates a vicious cycle of deteriorated endothelial dysfunction that further promotes inflammation. The alterations in the blood lipid profile induced by COVID-19 should not be ignored in assessing the predisposition toward atherosclerosis in victims of COVID-19. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the long-term monitoring of inflammatory factors and endothelial function should be considered in the follow-up of patients who have recovered from COVID-19 for early detection and prevention of atherosclerosis.

Impact of High-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Because of the high risk of thrombotic complications (TCs) during SARS-CoV-2 infection, several scientific societies have proposed to increase the dose of preventive anticoagulation, although arguments in favor of this strategy are inconsistent.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the incidence of TC in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and what is the relationship between the dose of anticoagulant therapy and the incidence of TC?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All consecutive patients referred to eight French ICUs for COVID-19 were included in this observational study. Clinical and laboratory data were collected from ICU admission to day 14, including anticoagulation status and thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. The effect of high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (either at intermediate or equivalent to therapeutic dose), defined using a standardized protocol of classification, was assessed using a time-varying exposure model using inverse probability of treatment weight.

RESULTS

Of 538 patients included, 104 patients experienced a total of 122 TCs with an incidence of 22.7% (95% CI, 19.2%-26.3%). Pulmonary embolism accounted for 52% of the recorded TCs. High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation was associated with a significant reduced risk of TC (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99) without increasing the risk of bleeding (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70-1.75).

INTERPRETATION

High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is associated with a reduction in thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 without an increased risk of hemorrhage. Randomized controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with higher doses of anticoagulants are needed to confirm these results.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04405869; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of Anticoagulation and Venous Thrombotic Disease for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

New studies of COVID–19 are constantly updating best practices in clinical care. Often, it is impractical to apply recommendations based on high-income country investigations to resource limited settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We present a set of pragmatic recommendations for the management of anticoagulation and thrombotic disease for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in LMICs. In the absence of contraindications, we recommend prophylactic anticoagulation with either low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis to minimize risk to healthcare workers. We recommend against the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Because of limited evidence, we suggest against the use of “enhanced” or “intermediate” prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Based on current available evidence, we recommend against the initiation of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation without clinical suspicion for VTE. If contraindications exist to chemical prophylaxis, we recommend mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices or graduated compression stockings (GCS) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. In LMICs, we recommend initiating therapeutic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, in accordance with local clinical practice guidelines, if there is high clinical suspicion for VTE, even in the absence of testing. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH or Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of VTE in LMICs to minimize risk to healthcare workers. In LMIC settings where continuous intravenous UFH or LMWH are unavailable or not feasible to use, we recommend fixed dose heparin, adjusted to body weight, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high clinical suspicion of VTE. We suggest D-dimer measurement, if available and affordable, at the time of admission for risk stratification, or when clinical suspicion for VTE is high. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs, based on current available evidence, we make no recommendation on the use of serial D-dimer monitoring for the initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving intravenous therapeutic UFH, we recommend serial monitoring of partial thromboplastin time or anti-factor Xa level, based on local laboratory capabilities. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving LMWH, we suggest against serial monitoring of anti-factor Xa level. We suggest serial monitoring of platelet counts in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation for VTE, to assess risk of bleeding or development of heparin induced thrombocytopenia.

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.

Clinical Outcomes With the Use of Prophylactic Versus Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Coronavirus Disease 2019

Objectives:

To determine the impact of anticoagulation on inhospital mortality among coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients with the a priori hypothesis that there would be a lower risk of inhospital mortality with use of preemptive therapeutic over prophylactic dose enoxaparin or heparin.

Design Setting:

Retrospective cohort study from April 1, 2020, to April 25, 2020. The date of final follow-up was June 12, 2020 Two large, acute-care hospitals in Western Connecticut.

Patients:

Five hundred and one inpatients were identified after discharge as 18 years or older and positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The final sample size included 374 patients after applying exclusion criteria. Demographic variables were collected via hospital billing inquiries, whereas the clinical variables were abstracted from patients’ medical records.

Exposure:

Preemptive enoxaparin or heparin at a therapeutic or prophylactic dose.

Main Results:

When comparing treatments through multivariable analysis, risk of inhospital mortality was 2.3 times greater in patients receiving preemptive therapeutic anticoagulation (95% CI = 1.0–4.9; p = 0.04). Additionally, the average treatment effects were higher (β = 0.11, p = 0.01) in the therapeutic group.

Conclusions:

An increase in inhospital mortality was observed among patients on preemptive therapeutic anticoagulation. Thus, in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 and its complications, we recommend further research and cautious use of preemptive therapeutic over prophylactic anticoagulation.