Estimation of Admission D-dimer Cut-off Value to Predict Venous Thrombotic Events in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

What Is the Impact of Baseline Inflammatory and Hemostatic Indicators with the Risk of Mortality in Severe Inpatients with COVID-19: A Retrospective Study

The purpose of the study was to investigate baseline inflammatory, hemostatic indicators and new-onset deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with the risk of mortality in COVID-19 inpatients. In this single-center study, a total of 401 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine were enrolled from December 1, 2022 to January 31, 2023. The basic information, first laboratory examination results, imaging examination, and outcome-related indicators were compared between patients in the moderate and severe subgroups. We found that baseline D-dimer and baseline absolute neutrophil count (ANC) levels were associated with new-onset DVT and death in severe hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The odds ratio (OR) of baseline D-dimer and baseline ANC with mortality was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.28; P < .001) and 1.13 (95% CI, 1.06-1.21; P < .001). Baseline ANC was associated with the risk of death in severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients, irrespective of the DVT status. In addition, a significantly higher serum neutrophil activity was observed in severe COVID-19 inpatients with DVT or those deceased during hospital stay. New-onset DVT partially mediated the association between baseline D-dimer (indirect effect: 0.011, estimated mediating proportion: 67.0%), baseline ANC (indirect effect: 0.006, estimated mediating proportion: 48.7%), and mortality in severe hospitalized patients with COVID-19. In summary, baseline D-dimer and baseline absolute neutrophil count (ANC) levels were associated with the mortality in severe hospitalized patients with COVID-19, especially DVT inpatients. New-onset DVT partially mediated the association between baseline D-dimer, baseline ANC, and mortality in severe hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Clinical prediction model for pulmonary thrombosis diagnosis in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection

Background and Aim

We aimed to develop a clinical prediction model for pulmonary thrombosis (PT) diagnosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Non-intensive care unit hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) for suspected PT were included in the study. Demographic, clinical, analytical, and radiological variables as potential factors associated with the presence of PT were selected. Multivariable Cox regression analysis to develop a score for estimating the pre-test probability of PT was performed. The score was internally validated by bootstrap analysis.

Results

Among the 271 patients who underwent a CTPA, 132 patients (48.7%) had PT. Heart rate >100 bpm (OR = 4.63 [95% CI: 2.30-9.34]; P < 0.001), respiratory rate >22 bpm (OR = 5.21 [95% CI: 2.00-13.54]; P < 0.001), RALE score ≥4 (OR = 3.24 [95% CI: 1.66-6.32]; P < 0.001), C-reactive protein (CRP) >100 mg/L (OR = 2.10 [95% CI: 0.95-4.63]; P = 0.067), and D-dimer >3.000 ng/mL (OR = 6.86 [95% CI: 3.54-13.28]; P < 0.001) at the time of suspected PT were independent predictors of thrombosis. Using these variables, we constructed a nomogram (CRP, Heart rate, D-dimer, RALE score, and respiratory rate [CHEDDAR score]) for estimating the pre-test probability of PT. The score showed a high predictive accuracy (area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve = 0.877; 95% CI: 0.83-0.92). A score lower than 182 points on the nomogram confers a low probability for PT with a negative predictive value of 92%.

Conclusions

CHEDDAR score can be used to estimate the pre-test probability of PT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients outside the intensive care unit.

Relevance for Patients

Developing a new clinical prediction model for PT diagnosis in COVID-19 may help in the triage of patients, and limit unnecessary exposure to radiation and the risk of nephrotoxicity due to iodinated contrast.

Utility of probability scores for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical prediction models determine the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and assess the need for tests for these patients. Coronavirus infection is associated with a greater risk of PE, increasing its severity and conferring a worse prognosis. The pathogenesis of PE appears to be different in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review aims to discover the utility of probability models developed for PE in patients with COVID-19 by reviewing the available literature.

METHODS

A literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was carried out. All studies that reported data on the use of clinical prediction models for PE in patients with COVID-19 were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies that evaluated five prediction models (Wells score, Geneva score, YEARS algorithm, and PERC and PEGeD clinical decision rules) were included. The different scales were used in 1,187 patients with COVID-19. Overall, the models showed limited predictive ability. The two-level Wells score with low (or unlikely) clinical probability in combination with a D-dimer level <3000ng/mL or a normal bedside lung ultrasound showed an adequate correlation for ruling out PE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review suggests that the clinical prediction models available for PE that were developed in the general population are not applicable to patients with COVID-19. Therefore, their use is in clinical practice as the only diagnostic screening tool is not recommended. New clinical probability models for PE that are validated in these patients are needed.

[Utility of probability scores for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review]

Background and objective

Clinical prediction models determine the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) and assess the need for tests for these patients. Coronavirus infection is associated with a greater risk of PE, increasing its severity and conferring a worse prognosis. The pathogenesis of PE appears to be different in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic review aims to discover the utility of probability models developed for PE in patients with COVID-19 by reviewing the available literature.

Methods

A literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was carried out. All studies that reported data on the use of clinical prediction models for PE in patients with COVID-19 were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies.

Results

Thirteen studies that evaluated five prediction models (Wells score, Geneva score, YEARS algorithm, and PERC and PEGeD clinical decision rules) were included. The different scales were used in 1,187 patients with COVID-19. Overall, the models showed limited predictive ability. The two-level Wells score with low (or unlikely) clinical probability in combination with a D-dimer level < 3000 ng/mL or a normal bedside lung ultrasound showed an adequate correlation for ruling out PE.

Conclusions

Our systematic review suggests that the clinical prediction models available for PE that were developed in the general population are not applicable to patients with COVID-19. Therefore, their use is in clinical practice as the only diagnostic screening tool is not recommended. New clinical probability models for PE that are validated in these patients are needed.

Therapeutic vs. prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies

INTRODUCTION

Coagulopathy, in the form of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, is one of the most severe sequelae of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and has been associated with poorer outcomes. However, the role of therapeutic anticoagulation (tAC) or prophylactic anticoagulation (pAC) in COVID-19 patients has not been definitely established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather all the available real-world data in the field and to provide a reliable effect size of the effect on mortality of tAC compared to pAC in COVID-19 patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Real-world studies (RWS) were identified by searching electronic databases from inception to 31st October, 2021. Randomized controlled trials were excluded. Mortality and bleedings were considered as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

10 RWS and 5541 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, tAC was associated with lower mortality (HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.54-0.71). There was asymmetry at the funnel plot suggesting publication bias, that was not confirmed at the Egger test (P=0.07). For the secondary endpoint, there was a non-statistically significant tendency for more bleedings in patients treated with tAC compared to pAC (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 0.81-3.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis, based on RWS and adjusted estimates of risk, suggests a survival benefit of tAC over pAC in COVID-19 patients in the real world.

Superior Predictive Value of D-Dimer to the Padua Prediction Score for Venous Thromboembolism in Inpatients with AECOPD: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Background

The optimal tool for risk prediction of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in inpatients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is still unknown. This study aimed to evaluate whether D-dimer could predict the risk of VTE in inpatients with AECOPD compared to the Padua Prediction Score (PPS).

Methods

Inpatients with AECOPD were prospectively enrolled from seven medical centers in China between December 2018 and June 2020. On admission, D-dimer was detected, PPS was calculated for each patient, and the incidence of 2-month VTE was investigated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of D-dimer and PPS on VTE development, and the best cut-off value for both methods was evaluated through the Youden index.

Results

Among the 4468 eligible patients with AECOPD, 90 patients (2.01%) developed VTE within 2 months after admission. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of D-dimer for predicting VTE were significantly higher than those of the PPS both in the overall cohort (0.724, 95% CI 0.672–0.776 vs 0.620, 95% CI 0.562–0.679; P<0.05) and the subgroup of patients without thromboprophylaxis (0.747, 95% CI 0.695–0.799 vs 0.640, 95% CI 0.582–0.698; P<0.05). By calculating the Youden Index, the best cut-off value of D-dimer was determined to be 0.96 mg/L with an AUC of 0.689, which was also significantly better than that of the PPS with the best cut-off value of 2 (AUC 0.581, P=0.007). After the combination of D-dimer with PPS, the AUC (0.621) failed to surpass D-dimer alone (P=0.104).

Conclusion

D-dimer has a superior predictive value for VTE over PPS in inpatients with AECOPD, which might be a better choice to guide thromboprophylaxis in inpatients with AECOPD due to its effectiveness and convenience.

Clinical Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trail Registry NO. ChiCTR2100044625; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=121626.

Thrombotic Events and Anticoagulation-Related Bleeding Complications in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019

Background: Thrombosis (T) is common in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, and d-dimer concentrations correlate with outcomes. Controversy exists with regards to anticoagulation (AC) for patients. We implemented a full-heparinization AC protocol from the onset of the pandemic and hypothesized that a safety signal would be undetectable. Patients and Methods: Prospective evaluation of 111 patients with COVID-19 critical illness hospitalized from March to June 2020. All patients received therapeutic heparinoid-based AC from admission. Incidences of T, bleeding (B), or both (BT) were noted. The primary outcome was mortality. Kruskal-Wallis test and logistic regression were performed. Results are expressed as n (%), median (interquartile range) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Alpha was set at 0.05. Results: Thirty-two patients (28%) had T, 23 (20%) had B, and 14 (12%) had BT; 42 (40%) patients were unaffected. Two logistic regression models (outcome = mortality) evaluated BT as T, or BT as B. For BT as T, neither T, B, nor male gender predicted mortality; similarly, for BT as B, neither T, B, nor male gender predicted mortality. Factors associated with higher odds of death included higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.13; p = 0.0045), higher d-dimer concentration (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; p = 0.043), and higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; p = 0.010). Conclusions: Neither T nor B predicted mortality in this prospective cohort of anticoagulated patients with COVID-19 critical illness. These data support continued full-dose heparinoid prophylaxis.

D-dimer: old dogmas, new (COVID-19) tricks

D-dimer is a fibrin degradation product encompassing multiple cross-linked D domains and/or E domains present in the original fibrinogen molecule, whose generation is only theoretically possible when hemostasis and fibrinolysis pathways are concomitantly activated. D-dimer measurement has now become a pillar in the diagnosis/exclusion and prognostication of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), when incorporated into validated clinical algorithms and especially using age-adjusted diagnostic thresholds. Although emerging evidence is also supporting its use for predicting the duration of anticoagulant therapy in certain categories of patients, the spectrum of clinical applications is constantly expanding beyond traditional thrombotic pathologies to the diagnosis of acute aortic dissection, acute intestinal ischemia and cerebral venous thrombosis among others, embracing also clinical management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recent findings attest that D-dimer elevations are commonplace in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) infection (especially in those with thrombosis), its value predicts the clinical severity (up to death) of COVID-19 and remains more frequently increased in COVID-19 patients with post-discharge clinical sequelae. Further, D-dimer-based anticoagulant escalation may be associated with a lower risk of death in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and, finally, D-dimer elevation post-COVID-19 vaccination mirrors an increased risk of developing vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT).

Role of Acute Thrombosis in Coronavirus Disease 2019

Patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are prone to venous, cerebrovascular, and coronary thrombi, particularly those with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pathogenesis is multifactorial and likely involves proinflammatory cascades, development of coagulopathy, and neutrophil extracellular traps, although further investigations are needed. Elevated levels of D-dimers are common in patients with COVID-19 and cannot be used in isolation to predict venous thromboembolism in people with SARS-CoV-2. If given early in hospital admission, therapeutic-dose heparin improves clinical outcomes in patients with moderate COVID-19. To date, antithrombotics have not improved outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19.

Full Characterization of Thrombotic Events in All Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in a Spanish Tertiary Hospital during the First 18 Months of the Pandemic

The presence of a procoagulant state, COVID-19-related coagulopathy, and an increased rate of thrombotic events (TEs) is widely known about. However, descriptive studies are scarce. Here, we conducted a large retrospective study including 2894 hospitalized COVID-19 patients followed up during the first 18 months of the pandemic to completely characterize any TE. Major TEs showed a 3.45% incidence rate. TEs were associated with increased intubation/90-day mortality risk [OR = 1.71, 95% CI (1.12−2.61), p < 0.013]. Venous thrombotic events (VTEs) were more frequent than arterial thrombotic events (ATEs) (72% vs. 28%), associated with enhanced levels of D-dimer (cross-linked fibrin derivatives formed during thrombolysis), which were related to mortality but more useful for early detection of thrombosis. In this regard, D-dimer plasma levels above 2014 µg/mL at hospital admission identify TEs with 91% accuracy (AUC = 0.91, p < 0.001), rising to almost 95% (AUC = 0.94, p < 0.001) with a cut-off value of 2666 µg/mL in VTEs. Moreover, 41% of TEs occurred in patients receiving LMWH thromboprophylactic treatments in hospital or domiciliary therapies. SARS-CoV-2 infection along with a sedentary lifestyle derived from the confinement in 2020 could be more determinant than a procoagulant state in patients with risk factors for TEs. Furthermore, the normal results obtained from the thrombophilia study after the acute process are linked to this independent procoagulant state and to SARS-CoV-2-derived coagulopathy.

PICO Questions and DELPHI Methodology for the Management of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with COVID-19

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a higher risk of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) than patients with other infectious or inflammatory diseases, both as macrothrombosis (pulmonar embolism and deep vein thrombosis) or microthrombosis. However, the use of anticoagulation in this scenario remains controversial. This is a project that used DELPHI methodology to answer PICO questions related to anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. The objective was to reach a consensus among multidisciplinary VTE experts providing answers to those PICO questions. Seven PICO questions regarding patients with COVID-19 responded with a broad consensus: 1. It is recommended to avoid pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in most COVID-19 patients not requiring hospital admission; 2. In most hospitalized patients for COVID-19 who are receiving oral anticoagulants before admission, it is recommended to replace them by low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) at therapeutic doses; 3. Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH at standard doses is suggested for COVID-19 patients admitted to a conventional hospital ward; 4. Standard-doses thromboprophylaxis with LMWH is recommended for COVID-19 patients requiring admission to Intensive Care Unit; 5. It is recommended not to determine D-Dimer levels routinely in COVID-19 hospitalized patients to select those in whom VTE should be suspected, or as a part of the diagnostic algorithm to rule out or confirm a VTE event; 6. It is recommended to discontinue pharmacological thromboprophylaxis at discharge in most patients hospitalized for COVID-19; 7. It is recommended to withdraw anticoagulant treatment after 3 months in most patients with a VTE event associated with COVID-19. The combination of PICO questions and DELPHI methodology provides a consensus on different recommendations for anticoagulation management in patients with COVID-19.